Hi-Tec - by how much?

Some product advertisements mention about manufacturing through computer based technology. Some bill boards for spectacle shops mention about computerized checkups and tests.Some new plants are known as hi-tech facilities.
In all these, what we understand is that they use some software or some techniques that run on computers. However, unless rigorous checks are not made to the software before its use, hi-tec can lead to complex problems, which we can't understand. For this, the programmer should understand fully the requirement, which should be specified by the engaging agency in clear terms. If there is no clarity in specifications and the understanding of the same by programmer is not checked, glitches may come later, which may develop in to unimaginable proportions.
What we start with hi-tec, also can become low-tec after sometime, when changes are made but not tested fully.
Management of change, i.e checking the modifications in an existing procedure for achieving the desired output, if not done properly can manage us later.
Some plant facilities started on PLC based operations initially will be suspended and reverted to manual mode because of the glitches. This is because of lack of clarity in what we want, what we conveyed to the developers/suppliers, and what we got. Hardware problems also can lead to similar situation. Sometimes, because of the complex operations involved in operating PLC based plants and poor training, managers revert to manual operations.
If we are overconfident that nothing will happen because a plant is hi-tec and leave the caution to the air, then also we may find surprises.
Hi-tec will be safe only when we address above issues.

Manage Change before it manages you

I read above quotation somewhere and noted in a pocket diary. Today, while going through the book I found this again.
Many changes take place everywhere and we carry out those changes most of the times to meet immediate requirement rather than analyzing for hidden dangers (or side effects). My colleague's brother who was a scientist during his government service used to say, 'what is temporary today is permanent'.
Safety professionals will be facing problems in convincing the shop floor managers to carryout proper hazard analysis and many times, the reply will be that they need clearance to execute so and so job and later it will be removed or it will be taken up for study.
There were a number of examples listed by reputed safety professional Trevor Kletz in his books like, What Went Wrong, Still Going Wrong, Learning from Disasters, etc, where many incidents took place because of improper or no evaluation of hazards.  Management of change is an important aspect in industries without which, we may end up with unforeseen events.
Sometimes, even shop floor workers too will find safety department an obstacle to their production job because of questions raised on safety, though, if something wrong occurs, it is the safety professional who will be questioned for not being authoritative or not active.
Hence, whatever be the nature of change or modification proposed, let it be process parameters, raw materials, equipment, or its accessories, auxiliary services, supports, or even operators, one should carry out a detailed analysis for hazards, impact on operation due to lack of knowledge/training/behavior, etc and then only proceed if satisfied with the results.