Industrial and financial experience meet in Rajeev Khandelwal's professional story. At that intersection, the avoided mistake deserves attention. A shipment corrected before dispatch or a payment error caught before release may leave no visible loss, yet each can expose a process that depends too heavily on someone's last-minute intervention.
Look beyond the fortunate ending
The first question is how the error travelled far enough to need rescue. Perhaps two people used different specifications or a changed instruction never reached the purchasing team. Celebrating the employee who noticed the problem is appropriate, but the institution also needs to understand why ordinary controls did not catch it earlier.
Make reporting proportionate
A lengthy investigation for every small discrepancy discourages disclosure. A brief record of what happened, what prevented harm and what could change is often enough to identify patterns. More serious or repeated events deserve deeper review. The reporting effort should follow the possible consequence rather than the drama of the conversation.
Reward the early interruption
People may remain silent when raising a concern is treated as delaying delivery. Managers can change that expectation by recognising timely questions and distinguishing a good-faith intervention from careless work. The goal is a workforce willing to interrupt a weak process before a customer or supplier discovers its consequences.
Close the loop with evidence
A new instruction is only the beginning of improvement. The next similar transaction should show whether the change made the problem easier to detect or less likely to recur. Near-miss learning becomes an asset when it reduces dependence on exceptional vigilance and makes ordinary work more dependable for the whole team.
