In my previous life, I was at one point Group General Manager: System Integration, for an outsourcing service provider and I have a few things to contribute to this discussion.
The first is that, if efficient, flexible, custom built, IT systems are central to your competitive advantage, then the IT manager needs to be a direct report to the CEO, not to some bean counter one level down. This is because your IT capabilities will limit your available business strategies unless there is constant change to your IT strategy to match the business needs. That means that the CEO and chief IT manager have to work very closely. For BA - any airline in fact, IT systems are central to your competitive advantage This is unarguable.
As an outsourcer, we always do our best to "lobotomise" our customers - remove what IT expertise. they have in order to make them reliant on us. We did this by hiring their best and brightest IT staff and arranging for the firing of the rest that we don't want or who represent a threat to our dominance of the IT agenda.
Once we have lobotomised the client, since we have access to the business strategy (the IT systems must match the strategy, right?) we tailor our offerings to direct the business strategy down avenues that maximise our profits. This includes change for changes sake that generate the need for additional services such as business process re engineering, change management and training services, etc. etc.
We also cut off threats to our dominance of the IT agenda by killing changes we don't like. We use politics, fear and cost tactics to do this.
Usually after about Five years of this, the client realises they have been lobotomised, are spending big money on IT and have their strategic directions "boxed in" by the outsourcer - meaning any changes are going to cost millions. They then realise they need to bring high level IT talent back in house to regain control of the IT agenda and pry our hands, finger by finger from the steering wheel of the company. Naturally we resist this any and every way we can. Please note, we are not good parasites, we don't care if we kill our host when he rejects us.
It is now quite clear that the Board of IAG and the management of BA failed. At Board level by not understanding the risks they were running by not insisting that IT be considered a top management responsibility. At management level, by not understanding the pitfalls of outsourcing and effectively managing their service providers who will have been doing precisely what I spelled out above to BA management.. Let me be clear. This is Board and senior management failure on a simply unpardonable level.
Since my view of the quality of British "management" is unprintable, let me speculate on what will happen next, as some folk here have stated, the innocent will be punished, the guilty will be promoted and management will go on its merry way, having learned precisely nothing.
On a technical note, the concept of an 'unforeseen equipment failure" as the root cause of the problem is risible. bollocks and BS.
By definition a backup system, or systems, properly designed and built, is there for the specific purpose of handling said "unforeseen equipment failure", at the worst possible time, under the worst possible conditions of staffing levels, weather, etc. or it isn't a backup system at all, it is merely some spare machines that might be able to take some of the load if suitably coddled.
To put that another way, the poster, an IT professional who described his method of testing a backup system by randomly pulling plugs and flicking switches knew exactly what he was talking about.