It's not. That's complete bullshit, and the On-Board Software Group demonstrated it by being as flawless as can be during the whole history of the Shuttle: as far as I know there was no personal accountability in the OSG, the only thing accountable was The Process supported by a strong culture of adversarial testing.
Personal accountability in such a system brings politics and career advancement in focus and leads to issues being shoved under the rug when inconvenient and energy being expended in finger-pointing and blame games rather than fixing problems.
> So it's not a personal, vindictive "your fault", its an impersonal "the problem is here, lets fix it".
No, it's not. Accountability is very precisely "your fault", that's all it is. That's pretty much the definition of it.
There may not have appeared to have been any personal accountability, but make no mistake if anything had gone wrong with the On-Board Software the EXACT same accountability process would have been initiated to ensure that the same human error did not occur for a second time.
Very unlikely, unless that had been imposed on the group by an external, blame-oriented entity.
Left to its own devices, the group would most certainly have operated as it did every time it found fault in its output: find out how The Process had allowed for a fault to be introduced and reach output, find out how to make The Process prevent the introduction and/or release of such faults, fix The Process.
So no, the "exact same accountability process" would most definitely not have been initiated within the group, a very different one would have taken place.
> No, it's not. Accountability is very precisely "your fault", that's all it is. That's pretty much the definition of it.
That. Accountability (worse: "personal accountability" and variants thereof) are a tool provided by the law to determine who to recover damages from after a failure has occurred. It is entirely unsuitable for failure prevention because it is entirely orthogonal to rigorous testing and a culture of workplace safety.
Anyone who insists on accountability on their project does not know what they need. What they get is an extraordinary amount of ass-covering, finger-pointing and blame deflection, though.
It's not. That's complete bullshit, and the On-Board Software Group demonstrated it by being as flawless as can be during the whole history of the Shuttle: as far as I know there was no personal accountability in the OSG, the only thing accountable was The Process supported by a strong culture of adversarial testing.
Personal accountability in such a system brings politics and career advancement in focus and leads to issues being shoved under the rug when inconvenient and energy being expended in finger-pointing and blame games rather than fixing problems.
> So it's not a personal, vindictive "your fault", its an impersonal "the problem is here, lets fix it".
No, it's not. Accountability is very precisely "your fault", that's all it is. That's pretty much the definition of it.