Well, I agree completely with PS. I felt that there was just a hint
of "look the other way while I cover my arse" in the tone of the
complaint by the Air NZ chief. Somewhere in there he knows that
ultimately he, and his board, are responsible for keeping their
airline running.. and pointing the finger and blustering; "Well, the
single-point-of-failure (IBM) we signed off on just should not have
failed!!" is him trying to dodge that responsibility issue. Even if
they had entirely in-house IT they should still be planning how to
function while it's out of action. As RS has pointed out, being
totally unable to operate what is essentially just a glorified bus
service without their computers makes 'em look like amateurs. Every
organisation needs to consider what they'll do, when, not if, an
extended computer outage hits them. Relying on diverting criticism
by publicly flogging a scapegoat, however deserving, is not taking
responsibility seriously.
And before people throw too many stones at IBM ..
Let's say that Air NZ were to switch IT facilities providers, either
now, or when the current contract term is up, what's the chance that
they will do any better next time? I'd suspect that the different
facilities providers, like IBMs, EDS/HP, CSC et al, at some level are
themselves using common suppliers for things like, oh let's say,
diesel powered generator sets, airconditioning, telecommunications,
electricians, building security, plumbers and, dare I say it, IT
contractors, systems programmers and so forth. So, choose whichever
overarching supplier you will, underneath they're likely to have at
least some exposures in common, especially in a small-ish community
like New Zealand.
Take care all,
Graeme AKA "Dr. Darkstar"
At 04:18 AM 13/10/2009, you wrote:
Notwithstanding where it was and whose fault it was or wasn't, the
fact that there are no backup procedures to speak of for keeping the
business running is worth noting (and for which management should be
excoriated).
..
<snip>
..
Air NZ might should consider something tricky like, oh, say, the
ability to get passengers on the planes WITHOUT having to hand-write
boarding passes. The boarding passes are for the airline's benefit
anyway; passengers don't care about them. Worst case, they tell
everyone to line up a la Southwest. The biz travelers would grumble,
but getting on board would beat not flying.
If the issue was getting passes before security, then again, the real
..
<snip>
..
This stuff ain't tricky; unclear why multi-billion-dollar businesses
wouldn't think about it BEFORE it's a crisis .. <snip>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
