Article
The Dashboard Was Never Wired to a Decision
Most operational dashboards and cockpit-style indicators are built to make a status visible, not to force a specific decision when that status crosses a dangerous line. When no one has been assigned to act on a given signal, and no action has been defined for when it fires, the signal can exist, be
- Published
- July 9, 2026
- Updated
- August 19, 2026
- Reading time
- 9 min
The Global Signal
Boeing's 737 MAX aircraft relied on a flight-control system called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) that, in its original design, took input from a single angle-of-attack sensor rather than comparing two. An "AOA Disagree" alert, meant to warn pilots when the aircraft's two angle-of-attack sensors disagreed, existed in the aircraft's software, but Boeing had packaged it as part of an optional cockpit display feature that many airlines had not purchased, meaning the alert was inactive on a large share of the delivered fleet. This is documented in detail in the US House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's 2020 final report on the 737 MAX's design, development, and certification, following the Lion Air Flight 610 crash in October 2018 and the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash in March 2019, which together killed 346 people (House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, "The Boeing 737 MAX Aircraft," September 2020).
The signal that would have told pilots something specific and correctable was wrong with their sensor data existed as software. It was not wired, by default, into the cockpit display most crews actually flew with.
A dashboard's job is to make status visible. A decision system's job is to force action when status crosses a defined line.
What changes when a signal is wired to a required action
A warning that exists in software is not the same as a warning that reaches an accountable person with a mandatory response.
Auditing high-consequence warnings for a named owner and a required action, not just presence, closes the gap the 737 MAX case exposed.
Why the Visible Metric Misleads
An engineering team can point to a dashboard or a warning light and correctly say the signal exists, and that statement can be entirely true while also being irrelevant to whether the signal actually changes behavior. The more revealing question is not whether a warning indicator is present in a system, but whether a specific person is assigned to see it, and whether a specific, mandatory action is defined for the moment it fires. The 737 MAX's AOA Disagree alert being bundled into an optional package meant the question "does this warning exist" and the question "will this warning reach a pilot who needs it" had two different answers, and only the first one was checked during certification review.
The Leadership Move
The right move is not to add more indicators to a dashboard. It is to audit every existing warning signal for two things: who is assigned to see it, and what mandatory action is defined for the moment it fires, retiring or fixing any signal that fails either test.
- Ownership
Engineering and product design typically own whether a warning signal exists in a system. Operations, training, and safety functions own whether that signal reaches the person who needs to act on it and whether a defined action follows. Those are often two separate teams working on two separate timelines, and a signal can pass one team's review while failing the other's silently.
- Tradeoff
Making every warning mandatory rather than optional or advisory is more expensive, in configuration cost, training cost, and the operational friction of forcing a stop when a signal fires. The alternative, letting a warning exist as optional or advisory, costs nothing until the moment the signal was needed and did not reach anyone in a position to act.
- Human consequence
The 346 people who died in the two 737 MAX crashes were served by a warning system that technically existed and functionally did not reach the flight crews who needed it. The gap between a signal existing and a signal being wired to a required action is invisible on paper and entirely visible in its consequence.
Implication for Operators
Any organization with a dashboard, alert, or warning system should assume that a signal existing in the software is not the same claim as a signal reaching a specific, accountable person with a mandatory action attached. The practical shift is auditing high-consequence warnings specifically for ownership and required response, not just for presence, and treating "the warning exists somewhere in the system" as an insufficient answer on its own.
A dashboard's job is to make status visible. A decision system's job is to force action when status crosses a defined line. The 737 MAX case shows what happens when an organization builds the first and assumes it has built the second: the signal exists, the certification checklist can be satisfied, and the gap between visibility and action remains invisible until the moment it is needed.
The decision blindness here is not a missing warning. It is a warning that technically exists while functionally reaching no one who is required to act on it.
When a key metric moves unexpectedly, how long does it typically take to identify the root cause and implement a response?
FAQ
Was the AOA Disagree alert's optional status the sole cause of the 737 MAX crashes?
No. Investigative reports point to multiple contributing factors, including MCAS's reliance on a single sensor and gaps in pilot training and documentation. The optional alert is one well-documented example of a warning that existed in the system without being reliably wired to the crews who needed it.
How is this different from simply having too many dashboard alerts?
Alert fatigue is a real, separate problem, too many signals competing for attention. This pattern is the opposite: a specific, meaningful signal that exists but has no defined owner or required action, so it produces no fatigue and no response, simply silence.
How can an organization tell if a warning signal is actually wired to a decision?
Ask two questions for any given warning: who is formally responsible for seeing it, and what is the mandatory action the moment it fires. If either answer is unclear or informal, the signal is present but not functionally wired to a decision.
Is making every alert mandatory operationally impractical?
Yes, which is why the audit matters more than a blanket rule. Only warnings tied to high-consequence outcomes need the mandatory-action treatment; lower-stakes signals can remain advisory, but that distinction should be made deliberately, not by default.
Who should own auditing a dashboard for this gap?
A function separate from the one that built the dashboard, typically operations, safety, or risk, since the team that built the signal is poorly positioned to notice that it was never wired to a required response.
Related intelligence
Article
Steering From Lagging Indicators
Strategic choices are routinely built on the most recent quarter's or year's results, indicators that are, by construction, a record of conditions that have already changed by the time they are reported. Leadership can steer confidently, using genuinely accurate numbers, toward a destination defined
Article
Automating a Decision Nobody Had Actually Made
Organizations frequently automate a workflow, a trading rule, a routing decision, a pricing exception, before anyone has explicitly decided what that workflow should optimize for, what should happen at its edges, or who owns the exceptions it will inevitably produce. Automation does not remove a dec
Article
Governance as a Way Not to Decide
A review committee, a steering group, or a multi-stage sign-off chain can look like careful oversight while actually functioning as a way to defer an uncomfortable decision indefinitely, because each additional review step looks rigorous and simultaneously postpones the moment someone has to actuall