As with the Titanic dilemma, it may also be useful to consider what kind of damage we do to the company by making one choice or the other. I think the captain of the Titanic believed he could actually avoid collision altogether, which is another scenario. Perhaps the captain felt that if he hit an iceberg at all, his career would be finished, and that he might as well risk going down with the ship if it gave him any chance to escape collision. So, we've got some kind of balancing between multiple kinds of consequences. And if that's done during the event, it slows down decisions even more.
People have an agreement on what is important, before they have to react in real-time.
This prompts me to think about the difference between redundant and nonredundant systems. But think about it more, and it seems analogous to the situation we have today with air travel. Instead of providing escape systems, the airline industry tries to minimize the chance of having an in-flight disaster. It could be that they thought there were adequate lifeboats for a different scenario. In that scenario, the lifeboats are there to relay people to another ship in case something happens that cripples the Titanic .