Normalisation of Deviance

A prevailing attitude of "if it ain't broke don't fix" and "this is how we have always done it" encourages the delusion that there is no inherent risk in the process. The knowledge that "it hasn't gone wrong before" is used to support an assumption that there is no risk, and any suggestion to the contrary is dismissed as the paranoid ramblings of doom-mongers, pessimists and nay-sayers. Those who promote the current process, whatever it may be, without subjecting it to the rigors of subjective criticism, do so in order to establish the business-as-usual so as to maintain their perception of "smooth running". This lack of pro-active oversight, and lack of support to implement pre-emptive change, creates an environment that allows, and in-fact passively promotes, the Normalisation of Deviance.

There is often a tendency to dismiss concerns of this ilk as the eccentricities of the perfectionist; a mere striving for the unachievable. This would be true, if applied to a game of chance such as roulette. Engineering projects, like roulette and and all aspects of life, do contain an inherent level of risk. However, unlike roulette, it is possible to measure, mitigate and often protect against the most severe impacts of the risks associated with an engineering project.

The correct response to addressing these issues is to maintain constant vigilance, be prepared to review and adapt processes on an ongoing basis, and remain constantly open to accessing any-and-all feedback from those who implement the procedures. Those who take the time and trouble to provide feedback should not be thought of as troublemakers or, worse still, whistleblowers. Instead, such individuals should, until proven otherwise, be considered as diligent operators who's thoroughness can and should be valued as perhaps the last line in defence against the worst case scenario.