On 12 Oct 2009 17:10:22 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >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.
If the crew schedules and maintenance information was on that system, they couldn't move until it was back up (hours of service and other interesting regulatory issues). If the contract was written properly, IBM might have big problems. > >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
