Editor's Note – July 2012: IBS comments on the major IT problems at RBS

Breadcrumbs

Home > IBS Journal > Features > Editor's Notes > Editor's Note – July 2012: IBS comments on the major IT problems at RBS

Editor's Note – July 2012: IBS comments on the major IT problems at RBS

28 June 2012

IBS Journal - Editor's note

Others have been there before and, unless they finally grapple with their legacy systems and processes, more and more banks could find themselves in a similar position to RBS – fire-fighting after a major, public computer problem. Read more >>

To read this article in full requires an IBS Journal subscription. Click here for more information and how to order access >>

Comments

#1 tomali 2012-06-28 12:07

It is quite clear that whatever upgrade there was to CA-7 was not tested.How is this possible at such large organisations? I know Project Managers working for RBS and they are PrinceII qualified, but are totally useless. I am not PrinceII qualified and have been running projects for many years all over the world and NONE have failed. Too many people with paper qualifications without the hands on experience from top down. Too many methodologies (PrinceII, Scrum Master, etc...). How did we manage without these pieces of paper!!!

#2 CathyG 2012-06-28 14:27

We've all been there whether it be in a small, medium or large environment. Generally, inadequate test scripts or the wrong type of testing,lends the element of instability which ends up with headlines. Every person working the process needs to understand their role and the criticality of mistakes. It helps to do a complete run through of the entire process, no matter how seemingly inconsequential. Either way, hindsight is 20/20 and embarrassing for those involved. I hope the RBS issues weren't career-ending.

#3 tomali 2012-06-28 15:03

Hello CathyG

You are far too generous!! and we have not all been there, the whole point of testing is to ensure whatever you are implementing is fit for purpose.

I think the use of the word hindsight is a bit generous and people at RBS SHOULD lose their careers. This is mind blowing that an upgrade that affects peoples livelihood, credit rating, access to funds etc... is not tested properly. As soon as we get these less than amateurs out of our profession the better. Once again the computer is at fault by RBS claiming it was a "glitch". it was HUMAN error and that should be categorically stated. Someone has to be held accountable-where are the Stakeholders, Programme Managers, Project Managers and other fandangle titles that PrinceII and other methodologies incorporate into project life cycles. I feel very strongly about this because there are far too many amateurs in our profession.

#4 Ghela 2012-06-29 17:01

Half the battle is the architecture of the core system itself. Like the final paragraph mentions, Cobol and C are a rigid core, inflexible and they create complex workarounds that can lead to "hiccups" like this. The more complex the system, the more chances for glitches and human error to occur.

Time for a little naval gazing and introspection about what key components should be part of any new overlay or adaptive system implemented to streamline some of these business practices. If we're looking purely at the technology FLEXIBILITY should be the primary concern. Time to leave Cobol/C and adopt a new language. 100% JAVA should be the new standard.

#5 Stephen Edward Walsh 2012-07-02 09:30

For further analysis of the outage in RBS/Ulster bank, here is a video blog on the subject youtu.be/71UJpxTyWNU

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

Add comment

Registered users can login (top right) to post comments instantly. You do not need to register to comment on this article, but doing so will give you access to additional content on this website and discounts on IBS research publications, please click here to register (it is free and only takes a minute). Comments are moderated and therefore may not show immediately. Check the Commenting Rules in our Terms and Conditions for more details.