What you say makes perfect sense, but as an academic I have to say it is extremely unlikely that the policies and procedures you mention can be carried over from corporations to academia in a straightforward way.
Academics react extremely badly to being told to follow procedures as part of their daily workflow, especially ones they don't understand the importance of. In fact, a big part of the reason that they're in academia in the first place is that they're not able to handle the mundane requirements that are usually in place in the "real world."
For example, someone I work with complains incessantly about the fact that department IT forced him to upgrade from pine — pine, in 2010 — because it is no longer supported. If the IT folks tried to institute rigorous procedures, they would be instantly vilified (and ignored). Unlike in a company where there's a hierarchy, professors don't have anyone above giving them orders, and aren't used to the concept.
Of course, scientific protocols themselves often require lots of procedures, but this is very different because it comes from within and is well-motivated from the point of view of the scientist.
Let me clarify: I do think it is very important that what happened here doesn't happen again, but ensuring that is much harder than someone not familiar with the system might assume. It probably needs to be a mixture of carrots and sticks; I'd say a lot more carrots than sticks.
I use mutt (preferred pine) to email code patches. All those clicky-gooey email clients spindle and mutilate code patches. There are configuration work-arounds for some, but it is impossible to prevent Outlook from destroying a patch.
Academics react extremely badly to being told to follow procedures as part of their daily workflow, especially ones they don't understand the importance of. In fact, a big part of the reason that they're in academia in the first place is that they're not able to handle the mundane requirements that are usually in place in the "real world."
For example, someone I work with complains incessantly about the fact that department IT forced him to upgrade from pine — pine, in 2010 — because it is no longer supported. If the IT folks tried to institute rigorous procedures, they would be instantly vilified (and ignored). Unlike in a company where there's a hierarchy, professors don't have anyone above giving them orders, and aren't used to the concept.
Of course, scientific protocols themselves often require lots of procedures, but this is very different because it comes from within and is well-motivated from the point of view of the scientist.
Let me clarify: I do think it is very important that what happened here doesn't happen again, but ensuring that is much harder than someone not familiar with the system might assume. It probably needs to be a mixture of carrots and sticks; I'd say a lot more carrots than sticks.