Managers overruled Eskom engineers and caused Kusile flue duct collapse

[lordnokon]

 

[Kosmik]

Sounds like Chernobyl, where after watching the series I put the whole root cause down to communism. Everyone schit scared to stand up to their boss, who in turn who are all schit scared of standing up to their bosses.

Good analogy for where we are now as a country, i.e. being fscked over by idiots in power.

Well, communists going to communist.

 

[Pak Fa Fui]

They were burning the wrong coal so it caused soot to build up which is how the duct broke off
It is linked to full capacity but it was able to handle it
The design of the duct is also questionable, easy to collect dirt and difficult to clean and now difficult to fix but can be fixed better, hopefully

 

[TheChamp]

Because the instruction was reportedly issued verbally and informally, the team could not pinpoint the manager or managers behind it.

“During the investigation, no auditable trail or evidence was provided on the decisions made to continue running the plant with a compromised FGD,” the report stated.

That's why you always insist on putting it down, especially when it's an unreasonable/illegal instruction or something that you will have to answer for.

 

[Pegging]

That's why you always insist on putting it down, especially when it's an unreasonable/illegal instruction or something that you will have to answer for.

True.

Managers are always happy when you ask them to put all instructions in writing, and have it certified.

They tend rate you extra high in your PA's for using that sort of initiative.

 

[TheChamp]

True.

Managers are always happy when you ask them to put all instructions in writing, and have it certified.

They tend rate you extra high in your PA's for using that sort of initiative.

Not all instructions, instructions like that, when you are the professional and you have the data to back your decision and someone tells you to do something that is contrary to what you have decided and you are the person who is going to be accountable for the mess that will arise.

 

[DapperDanMan]

Who remembers the good old days ... oh, just 9 months ago?

Eskom gives hope – despite increased risk of load shedding in the coming months

Eskom notes that the national electricity grid remains constrained, with an elevated risk of load shedding over the winter period, particularly during the morning and evening peaks.

businesstech.co.za

 

[Pegging]

Not all instructions, instructions like that, when you are the professional and you have the data to back your decision and someone tell you to do something that is contrary to what you have decided and you are the person who is going to be accountable for the mess that will arise.

Correct. So they got this in writing right?

 

[MentellusMaximus]

Not all instructions, instructions like that, when you are the professional and you have the data to back your decision and someone tell you to do something that is contrary to what you have decided and you are the person who is going to be accountable for the mess that will arise.

Agree, something of this nature, in an organisation like this, with the possible consequence the wrong instruction could have, such instructions should be backed up by something in writing, which should be part of standard operating procedure.

Maybe André forgot to get this included in SOPs... the scale of his failures will take years to uncover...

 

[TheChamp]

Correct. So they got this in writing right?

Because the instruction was reportedly issued verbally and informally, the team could not pinpoint the manager or managers behind it.

“During the investigation, no auditable trail or evidence was provided on the decisions made to continue running the plant with a compromised FGD,” the report stated.

 

[B-1]

Agree, something of this nature, in an organisation like this, with the possible consequence the wrong instruction could have, such instructions should be backed up by something in writing, which should be part of standard operating procedure.

Maybe André forgot to get this included in SOPs... the scale of his failures will take years to uncover...

In organisations where managers override decisions made by engineers on a factual basis don't typically give the engineers who question authority the support to do so and they won't be around long after questioning the status quo.

 

[zll]

Agree, something of this nature, in an organisation like this, with the possible consequence the wrong instruction could have, such instructions should be backed up by something in writing, which should be part of standard operating procedure.

I don't work in anything as technical as a power station, and whenever I disagree with anyone I work with, I make sure I have their instructions in writing as well as my thoughts so that I don't get thrown under the bus.

 

[TheChamp]

Agree, something of this nature, in an organisation like this, with the possible consequence the wrong instruction could have, such instructions should be backed up by something in writing, which should be part of standard operating procedure.

Maybe André forgot to get this included in SOPs... the scale of his failures will take years to uncover...

Managers will always want to sneak things in, a favour here, an escalation from the big bosses there, especially when they are under pressure from their superiors, most of the times everything works out and we move on and forget about, there is just that one time when a mess will occur, then you as an executor will find out how quickly the procedure and processes rule book is thrown at you when you are in the disciplinary hearing, even if what you did is traditionally how you have been doing things all along.

It's sad because employees are mostly conflicted on the thin line between insubordination and refusing to do something that's procedural or illegal, so for the sake of peace you just do it, until something goes wrong ANC you will see how fast the same manager who instructed you will demand proof of the instruction.

 

[RedViking]

Ons is in groot k@*

 

[MentellusMaximus]

Managers will always want to sneak things in, a favour here, an escalation from the big bosses there, especially when they are under pressure from their superiors, most of the times everything works out and we move on and forget about, there is just that one time when a mess will occur, then you as an executor will find out how quickly the procedure and processes rule book is thrown at you when you are in the disciplinary hearing, even if what you did is traditionally how you have been doing things all along.

It's sad because employees are mostly conflicted on te thin line between insubordination and refusing to do something that's procedural or illegal, so for the sake of peace you just do it, until something goes wrong ANC you will see how fast the same manager who instructed you will demand proof of the instruction.

True, but SOPs should prevent that, or hold someone accountable, even if it is the person who 'did a favour'.

I relate this to change control procedures in companies I work with, where there is no way something like this would have gone through undocumented, including what the instruction was, the processes to be followed to execute on the instruction, who does what when, risks involved, rollback procedures if any, and a number of other items important to have on record.

In this case the manager(s) responsible for the area where the mess occurred should be fired since it is their failure (but we also know that is not how it works, the person(s) who did the favour will take the full blame).

 

[Rickster]

Reminds me of the mini series Chernobyl. Workers said its not safe to run the test, management forced them and then boom.

 

[wingnut771]

Ahhh, the standard "We can't hold anyone accountable because it was a verbal instruction".

Its simple then, if a "manager" issued a verbal instruction and it was implemented, the person who implemented the verbal instruction which has led to this issue should be fired.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Managers will always want to sneak things in, a favour here, an escalation from the big bosses there, especially when they are under pressure from their superiors, most of the times everything works out and we move on and forget about, there is just that one time when a mess will occur, then you as an executor will find out how quickly the procedure and processes rule book is thrown at you when you are in the disciplinary hearing, even if what you did is traditionally how you have been doing things all along.

It's sad because employees are mostly conflicted on the thin line between insubordination and refusing to do something that's procedural or illegal, so for the sake of peace you just do it, until something goes wrong ANC you will see how fast the same manager who instructed you will demand proof of the instruction.

No... a good manager will understand the concept of Change Controls, SOPs etc... especially when working within the Power station space, and a competent employee will also know that you don't do "favours" for your manager... everything is signed off, audited and trackable.

CYA

 

[Oldfut]

Managers will always want to sneak things in, a favour here, an escalation from the big bosses there, especially when they are under pressure from their superiors, most of the times everything works out and we move on and forget about, there is just that one time when a mess will occur, then you as an executor will find out how quickly the procedure and processes rule book is thrown at you when you are in the disciplinary hearing, even if what you did is traditionally how you have been doing things all along.

It's sad because employees are mostly conflicted on the thin line between insubordination and refusing to do something that's procedural or illegal, so for the sake of peace you just do it, until something goes wrong ANC you will see how fast the same manager who instructed you will demand proof of the instruction.

Aye, essentially the Zandile Gumede book of management for your own greedy ends. In simple terms; do as I say or I will get you fired.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

You know how people keep saying you don't need technical experience to manage Eskom?

This is what happens.

Oh yes. This has come back to bite and Jay Naidoo is silent:

In 1994 Jay Naidoo's RDP office in the Presidency claimed that engineers were elitists with no part to play in SA's future. As a consequence the DTI has provided no policy that includes engineering in development, believing that sociologists and economists can do a better job than engineers. In 2003 the Presidency issued a statement confirming that sociologists at the Sociology of Work Unit at Wits were the experts in manufacturing development not engineers.

So the problem in SA is that our universities are teaching sociologists and economists that by studying these subjects that receive magical power that can overcome science and technology.

In 1996 the Sociology of Work unit at Wits stated to the DTI that Ford, GM, Goodyear and Siemens were incompetent in manufacturing development. A belief that Minister Davies used in parliament in 2010 to justify a position of government

Having got rid of all the engineers who effectively ran Eskom, it should come as no surprise that Eskom's principal business tools are incompetence, uselessness, irresponsibility, muddled thinking and stupidity.