Originally Posted By SuperDry Sport Goofy wrote: <<< most people generally look for shortcuts if there aren't negative consequences involved. It's just human nature. >>> Kennesaw Tom responded: <<< I know for a fact its NOT human nature. >>> KT: You know for a fact that it's not human nature to look for shortcuts? Please explain.
Originally Posted By sjhym33 I think there is blame to be placed all around from maitenance, to the other driver, to the person at base to the system itself. The problem is multi tiered from a operational change that had a driver driving backward thru a switch into a station (did no realise years ago that a driver in reverse could not see if someone in the station decided to hop on the beam?) to a system that doesn't tie the Base Coordinator to the Base console and actually watch the system, to a driver that didnt know which spur track he was on and so on and so on. The question at this point is did any one person in this accident do something that was against SOP. My guess is no. Each person was doing what they always did. It was the accepted way to run the system. Was the changes tied to money being cut? Probably yes on some level. If the Base Coordinator was on the platform because his current role requires him to run the system AND load trains because they didn't want to pay another platform CM then there is a direct link to cutbacks. But I would guess that this has been in place for so many years that no one even thought that the Base Coordinator shouldnt have been on the platform. My opinion is that the Disney that I worked for in the 80's and 90's and on occasion the 00's, is not the company it once was. That has been good and bad. The old Disney might never have built the AK or many of the great hotels, waterparks and other experiences that we now take for granted. The bad is that Disney now is a corporation. By that I mean that there was a cultural shift in the company that means that it makes business decisions using accepted business models. It looks like IBM, GM or any other large company. It went from using terms as "attractions" to "lines of business". It went from having asst managers in charge of safety issues to a dept that has a guy, who reports to another guy who interfaces with another person who is in charge of safety. You used to be able to put a work order in and get something painted that needed it and a week later there was a painter that I could talk to and someone I usually knew by name. And he took pride that he painted in the MK. Today you have to call someone who calls planned works who then submits a budget to someone who works across property who then approved it and three months later some guy comes and slaps some paint up here but tomorrow will be at Downtown Disney. My point is that the things that put this most recent accident in motion started a long time ago and has created a culture in which no one is really in charge or in a position to make changes without so much work that it is easier to accept the status quo.
Originally Posted By sjhym33 To show what I mean, during my most recent foray at Disney I worked at a popular attraction. One day this guy showed up in a dress shirt and name tag. Someone I had never seen before. He stood around for awhile and watched the CM's. Every so often he would ask one of them a question. My curiosity got the better of me and I walked up to him, extended my hand and introduced myself. I stood there and chatted with him and he told me that he was from the safety line of business. Hmmm. And what do you do? He comes to attractions to make sure that we are following SOP (standard operating procedures). Great! When did you work at this attraction. Never. Never? Then how do you know SOP. I have read it many times and I was trained here one day. So you're telling me that your in charge of safety for an attraction that you have never worked but you know the SOP? Yeah. I looked at him and said that I once read a book on how to play the guitar but I still can't play a note. We kinda chuckled at the comparison. I asked him why wasnt our immediate managers responsible for doing what he does. His response was very Disney. Safety is all of our jobs. True, but I couldnt help wonder when the first line of managers lost the ability to do what should be one of the most important jobs of a manager.
Originally Posted By ImaginingDisney001 The Monorails are my favorite thing at Walt Disney World. This whole line of operation, the accident and possible causes, has be bummed out, I think we all are. That said, I worked at a place that relied on Automation and rail road cars. Automation is a funny thing, sometimes it works great, but if one thing stops working, it all goes down. We relied on manual operation ( union employees ) to do the job. Sometimes that was worse than the Automation ( but I aint going there ). We also used procedures in our operations, MANY MANY of them. The weak spot of procedures is the people that initiate them. In all cases, when we were testing any kind of equipment that moved, similar to the monorail track switches, we absolutely had to have an eye witness to verify that the equipment did what it was supposed to do. This seems to not have been done at the time of the accident. That points the finger at the Maintenance Man. Our Operators are responsible for the operation of the eqpuipment and if they saw trouble, are supposed to shut it down. In the case of the Pilot driving in reverse, it is difficult to point at him other than he was driving the train that crashed into the other. Our Supervisors are responsible for the procedure being carried out correctly. That would not allow to be away from the equipment test until it is completed. If the control and manager were having dinner at the time this went on, they were off the job, Period.... We would eliminate them for that. In the light of the new, lesser trained employess, I would say, look for more of the same to happen again some time. The trains on railroad track have someone at the switch when switching track, it seems to me, Disney isn't even meetint that standard that night. Being these trains are electrical and MAPO shuts down the power to stop impact of trains, it would be very easy to set up the switches to allow only the track that the control is switched for to be energized. The other, in this case, to the TTC Epcot station, would be dead. This could be implemented at all switch locations but the one in question is the one that needs it the most. I am talking from a factory with automation view point and I can visualize how it could be used in this case and would have prevented the accident. Thats my final thought, I probably wont comment again unless I'm flamed but I still feel with the needed equipment changes, this would not have happened. Hold on , let me slip into my asbestous jacket, get off my soap box, ok, FIRE AWAY ID
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Being these trains are electrical and MAPO shuts down the power to stop impact of trains, it would be very easy to set up the switches to allow only the track that the control is switched for to be energized. The other, in this case, to the TTC Epcot station, would be dead. This could be implemented at all switch locations but the one in question is the one that needs it the most. >>> This would not have prevented this accident. Remember that NTSB has found that there was no mechanical malfunction in the accident. And, even before the NTSB announcement, all indications were that the switch was in fact not switch nor commanded to be switched. That is, it wasn't as if the barn told it to switch but it didn't - rather, nobody ever operated the control to switch the switch, but for reasons unknown to the public, someone at the barn reported on the radio that this had been done.
Originally Posted By ImaginingDisney001 >>> This would not have prevented this accident. Remember that NTSB has found that there was no mechanical malfunction in the accident. And, even before the NTSB announcement, all indications were that the switch was in fact not switch nor commanded to be switched <<<< That would be that HUMAN ERROR thing, and right, if the control switch were never switch to change the spur, mechanicals were proper. but there are other interlocks that could have seen the train in the station and the coming train....... but this is getting complicated again and Disney wont put it in anyway. Now one might say, thats what MayPo is for, yes it is but not when a train is reversed. I am blown away that the train is allowed to move in reverse, with the Pilot way way in back, with no CM in the rear car to "Lookout". This just blow my mind at this point. but as I said in the previous post, where I worked, we had to visually check every mechanical movement in the procedure. the train is part of that. But whatever, like I said before, this has turned ugly and as more thoughts come up like all the seasoned old employees laid off and the cms are now new hires with high turn over, that is really scary folks. I think Disney needs to rethink its safety and add some safety interlocks to prevent stupid things from happening. The days of the old monorail workers expertise are long gone. There is no excuse for a loss of life, none! ID
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << If the Base Coordinator was on the platform because his current role requires him to run the system AND load trains because they didn't want to pay another platform CM then there is a direct link to cutbacks. But I would guess that this has been in place for so many years that no one even thought that the Base Coordinator shouldnt have been on the platform. >> Or maybe a few platform workers decided the day had been long enough for them and asked their supervisor to clock out early since the monorails were done shuttling guests. After all, the on duty monorails supervisor seemed to be OK with letting the on-site monrail station coordinator leave his post due to illness without any replacement. What if the same supervisor was lenient about letting other people leave their assigned stations early, too? You can get shorthanded very quickly if a supervisor doesn't require employees to be where they are supposed to be.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Hmmm. And what do you do? He comes to attractions to make sure that we are following SOP (standard operating procedures). Great! When did you work at this attraction. Never. Never? Then how do you know SOP. I have read it many times and I was trained here one day. So you're telling me that your in charge of safety for an attraction that you have never worked but you know the SOP? Yeah. I looked at him and said that I once read a book on how to play the guitar but I still can't play a note. We kinda chuckled at the comparison. I asked him why wasnt our immediate managers responsible for doing what he does. >> Modern day human resources has done this throughout corporate america. In order to provide the "best fit" for its "human capital objects," it breaks down work that needs to be done into very specific tasks and then seeks to fill positions based upon hiring people who are only certified to conduct those tasks. The idea that a manager could be multi-hatted to manage safety and other areas of their assignment doesn't exist anymore. Everyone has to have all of these layers of certification and qualification to perform a niche function. On paper, it makes it seem like the organization is optimized to perform all of its tasks to perfection, but in practice it creates a disjointed and bloated organization that doesn't work very well. It's the way of modern human resources, though, and every corporation practices it.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<KT: You know for a fact that it's not human nature to look for shortcuts? Please explain.>> You have to be careful when you start using terms like "human nature". To quickly prove my point, if it were true that it was human nature to look for shortcuts then every live birth in this world would be induced and by cesarean. Furthermore, there are all sorts of species on this planet, including humans that have a propensity for doing extraordinary things. For example you have Canadian geese which fly each year accross this continent to propogate then return back to their "home". You have salmon that each year swim up remote rivers in order to spawn. You have monarch butterflies that migrate each year to Mexico and return back. Clearly there are amny examples of creatures great and small that do not take "shortcuts". Oh course the big one here to me is when we start taking about human nature and human sexuality. Many people would argue that its human nature to be heterosexual. And therefor homosexual acts are acts against nature. I would argue that since homosexuality has existed in every human culture since the begining of time to today that humans have a propensity to be sexually active, for many with members of the opposite sex and for some members of the same sex. And of course not every one is sexually active. So again, you have to be careful when your talking about "human nature".
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Also in management there is such a thing as the "Peter Principle", which implies that ever employee is promoted to the point in which they reach their level of incompetence. Something else that "points the finger" at management and procedures.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< In order to provide the "best fit" for its "human capital objects," it breaks down work that needs to be done into very specific tasks and then seeks to fill positions based upon hiring people who are only certified to conduct those tasks. >>> Sport Goofy: you forgot to mention how they describe anyone that doesn't go along with the program: "not a team player."
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Meanwhile we employees call members of the management team who go along with these plans "Koolaid drinkers".
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << To quickly prove my point, if it were true that it was human nature to look for shortcuts then every live birth in this world would be induced and by cesarean. >> How is that a shortcut? It involves a surgical procedure that leaves long-term scars and additional expense. I wouldn't consider it a shortcut at all.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Also in management there is such a thing as the "Peter Principle", which implies that ever employee is promoted to the point in which they reach their level of incompetence. Something else that "points the finger" at management and procedures. >> Great for Dilbert cartoons, but not all that accurate in real life. I guess if you feel like you are an oppressed worker, these sorts of ideas help you sort through your lot in life. There are good and bad employees throughout the entire spectrum of a workforce. It's always been my experience that the part of the workforce that complains the most about management is the part that doesn't like to be held accountable for following the rules. I find myself with criticism for my superiors from time to time, but I don't think any of them are incompetent. Some are dishonest, some are overly ambitious, and some are just not in the right field of work -- but none of them are really incompetent.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Some are dishonest, some are overly ambitious, and some are just not in the right field of work -- but none of them are really incompetent.>> And some members of various management teams are psychotic, sadistic, and narcissistic as well.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I recently saw ( again ) the movie Fun with Dick and Jane. <<Dick's company Globodyne, and the way it falls, is a direct parody of various corporations early in the 21st century like Enron, Global Crossing, and MCI Worldcom. The closing credits begin with a Special Thanks To list, naming executives at Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, ImClone Systems, Arthur Andersen, Cendant and HealthSouth.>>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Great for Dilbert cartoons, but not all that accurate in real life.>> I think you might be getting confused with the the term the Dilbert Principle. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...rinciple</a> <Although humorous, Peter's book contains many real-world examples and thought-provoking explanations of human behavior. Similar observations on incompetence can be found in the Dilbert cartoon series (such as The Dilbert Principle), the movie Office Space, and the television show The Office. In particular, the Dilbert Principle seems to be an extension to the Peter Principle. According to the Peter Principle, the subject has been competent at some job in their past. The Dilbert Principle attempts to explain how a person who has never been competent at anything at any point in time can still be promoted into management. Of course, both the Peter Principle and the Dilbert Principle can be operating in the same organization at the same time.>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Great for Dilbert cartoons, but not all that accurate in real life. I guess if you feel like you are an oppressed worker, these sorts of ideas help you sort through your lot in life. There are good and bad employees throughout the entire spectrum of a workforce. It's always been my experience that the part of the workforce that complains the most about management is the part that doesn't like to be held accountable for following the rules. I find myself with criticism for my superiors from time to time, but I don't think any of them are incompetent. Some are dishonest, some are overly ambitious, and some are just not in the right field of work -- but none of them are really incompetent.< sorry Goofy I have to disagree with you - I have spent almost 30 years in management, from 1st line thru executive management ( so I feel I can criticize based on experience - not whining) - and people many times do get promoted to 'their level of incompetence " -- Many people can manage if they have no personnel responsibilities - or very limited by HR - yet when they get to a level where they OWN hiting - firing - promotions- demotions etc- they fail miserably. You may call that the wrong line of work- I call it incompetent. Many can manage local groups and fail miserably at global management ( this is a huge one I can tell you ) - some can manage a department until they OWN the budgetary accountablity - then fail. Most everyone reaches the 'peter principle' level at some time - they have to be smart enough to either avoid that last step- or opt out once there- as not only are they miserable- they make other people so too, as well as usually fail at their assignment. Doesn't make them a bad person - just a bad fit for what they are asked to do.
Originally Posted By sjhym33 I agree. My current immediate boss is a wonderful, warm, caring person. I like her a lot. She is a terrible manager. She doesn't know how to deal with people, doesn't think thru decisions and forgets things you discussed with her an hour after your meeting is over. On the other hand, she did a great job in her job before her promotion. That was because the person she replaced was organized, two steps ahead and a really great boss and she excelled because she was a fantastic follower. Is it her fault? No, I think she is in the wrong position. Will she get better? Probably with time she will learn some more skills but I dont think she will ever be a great manager.
Originally Posted By danyoung I think I have the same boss in male form! Great guy, very likeable, horrible at riding herd over us rascally employees. I'm right on the fence between trying to be responsible while taking advantage of the slackness of management. I get my work done, but I'm not always here at the crack of 8am. He's easily the least strict manager I've ever had, & I try not to take too much advantage.
