WHBM:
Now if I was designing it I would have a repeater of the information at the engineering base so the team could see, in advance, what was coming where so they could jump in and get errors sorted out. People not envisaging errors, clashes, etc, and how to overcome them immediately are one of the banes of the business world. I am afraid many such projects suffer by being put out to the lowest bidder, someone higher up the chain feeling that is all that is important.
"I would have a repeater of the information at the engineering base so the team could see,"............
But no! Then they might challenge my authority!
"what was coming where so they could jump in and get errors sorted out. People not envisaging errors, clashes, etc, and how to overcome them immediately are one of the banes of the business world...."
What errors? I don't make errors, if I did I'd hide them from you anyway! Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong.
"I am afraid many such projects suffer by being put out to the lowest bidder,"
There is no way this project went to the lowest bidder...at least not when the variations and customisation is added tot he cost. I've watched the boys and girls from Accenture turn a low bid of $20 million into a $40 million project.
Vaffpax:
Well, the people on the ground are usually the last people asked about how things should work. Because after all, all they'd want is for the system to continue working the way it does, inefficiency and all (not my words). That's one thing that has always frustrated me in a consultative role - Being prevented from talking to the people who are actually supposed to USE the system.
No, No, No, Vaffy, the people on the ground will only tell you how things work
now, they won't tell you how things
should work once we have had a bit of business process re-engineering in our fevered dreams. Only management can tell you that.
....Of course they don't have to make the system work in a rainstorm at 2.00 am in winter.
Curious:
Aren't you missing the point by blaming the IT systems? Would I be right in thinking that in the example given, at some point someone somewhere has input stand TA3 instead of TA4 into the system?
I'm not blaming the IT systems. I'm blaming the prats who didn't test for the absurdity in the IT system that Chinook pointed out. Then there are the prats who established the business rules for the IT system concerned. If it was finger trouble by someone, somewhere, Why didn't the IT system flag the absurdity of an aircraft being required in two different places at the same time? That's what IT systems are good at.
The reason that these foul-ups always happen is always the same - managers viewing their staff as part of the problem and not part of the solution. Hence when they voice concerns or try and contribute their experience to the design of a new project it's regarded as "special pleading' and their input is then ignored.
How do I know this? Because as a young and impressionable MBA, I was hired as a Group General Manager for a reasonably large software solution provider because
I had no experience of mainframe computer systems - and was not "contaminated" by mainframe/cobol ways of doing things - this was seen as a big plus by the Directors of the company!........Needless to say I was out of there in 18 months with my tail between my legs, when it became obvious to all that I hadn't the faintest idea what I was doing and the Directors view of what the business required was a fantasy..