In 1935, Boeing Corp. would have never predicted it was about to make one of its greatest contributions not only to the aviation industry but to every other line of work as well. Boeing’s Model 299, nicknamed the “Flying Fortress,” was the clear leader in the War Department’s selection process for the next generation of long-range bombers.


In October 1935, Boeing test pilots brought a prototype to a “fly-off” conducted by the U.S. Army Air Corps in Dayton, Ohio, expecting to prove its clear superiority while military brass and executives from competing plane manufacturers observed. Every major aircraft manufacturer was there to vie for contracts that would drive the war effort and the future of aviation. Boeing’s superior design meant the 299 could carry more bombs and still fly faster and farther than rival models. This competition was expected to demonstrate an easy choice for officials witnessing it.


As the plane began its presumptive victory flight, easily speeding down the tarmac and climbing into the air, it abruptly turned on its side and crashed into the ground.


Luckily, the story did not end there. While an initial setback to Boeing, the military decided to purchase a few Model 299 planes for more extensive testing. Everyone wanted to know why such a sophisticated piece of equipment with so much potential did not work as expected. According to a newspaper account at the time, some officials had already concluded that the Model 299 “was too much plane for one person to fly.” While acknow-
ledging that this next-stage aircraft had its own new set of complexities, Boeing management was fully confident that it was possible to successfully pilot it in and out of combat missions.


The solution that Boeing concocted was truly novel and set a precedent for mastering seemingly complex working environments in every walk of life. As opposed to adding increasingly stringent levels of training or responsibility to beleaguered air crews, the company decided on an elegantly straightforward way through which everyone in any field could be equipped to confront complexity in the routine execution of their work. It was one of Boeing’s greatest contributions to organizational management, and it began as the pilot’s checklist for Model 299, soon to be known as the B-17 bomber.


In “The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right,” author Atul Gawande retells the B-17 bomber story and many others as part of a treatise about two major forces that work against all complex environments. First, we are sometimes—not said unkindly—“ignorant,” simply because science and knowledge have not yet caught up with the complexity of our work. Second, we can sometimes be “inept,” which is to say that we might indeed possess the know-how we need, yet we fail to apply it properly.


Checklists enable us to apply our onboard knowledge properly, reducing error from the get-go.


Gawande cites results that are striking in a number of fields [in the successful use of checklists]. In routine matters, we often overlook items that we deem common, even unnecessary. We think we know better; our expertise exempts us from the need for discipline in mundane steps. The fact is, complex systems contain many larger problems that originate from errors in the “mundane.” Engineers call these “all-or-nothing” processes, where the larger effort fails if you get the basics wrong in the first place.


Checklists have been proven to reduce error for many industries, including medicine, aviation, restaurants, and, of course, construction. Service work for electrical contractors provides a perfect environment as well.


We previously listed three essentials to success for an electrical contracting service operation: the right organizational structure; staffing, including training and education for the separate business unit; and automation of construction services to ensure sustainable profits. In the complex environment of service work, basic reminders across the organization, incorporating the latest training knowledge and using the power of automation can remove basic errors from becoming “all-or-nothing” losses. Those inefficiencies can truly hurt the bottom line and are avoidable. Electrical safety errors can quickly go beyond the mundane to life threatening.


We can learn from another industry as well. Gawande tells us about a restaurant well known for its food and even more famous for the loyalty of its customers. Not only does the kitchen’s automated system create checklists of daily procedures and recipes, it also tracks customers’ allergies, food preparation preferences and special occasions. Imagine your service electricians always arriving on time, ready to go to work with the right information and material, and with a reminder about the customer’s special preferences. Working with a well-developed checklist system will surely lead to a longer customer list.