BA Woes

We are told that hapless BA passengers face days of chaos following computer failure which disrupted operations.  It will not just be a simple matter of fixing the computer and then starting up where they left off.  Aircraft will be in the wrong place and their maintenance disrupted.  Crews may have exceeded their duty time and will need to rest before working again.  Passengers will be piled up all over the place.  Chaos indeed which will be a massive reputation hit to BA (already suffering from the free meals issue).  Alex Cruz, the BA Chief Executive said he was “extremely sorry” and the airline said that the problems were due to “a power supply issue.”  BA dismissed speculation of a cyber-attack (they would have to unless forced to admit it). Whatever the cause, there seem to be 2 issues.  Firstly, when the management system crashes, why isn’t there a rehearsed back-up plan to keep the business going?  Secondly, when massive disruption occurs, why is the reputational impact compounded by poor customer information and service?

My first RAF Squadron, No 57, based at RAF Marham in Norfolk (fondly dubbed “El Adem with grass”), was a nuclear deterrent “V Bomber” unit in the process of re-equipping and re-roling to the air-to-air refuelling role.  The heart of the Squadron was the Operation Room from where the flying programme (the business) was planned and managed.  Management tools in those days were limited to pencil and paper and data recorded on wall displays.  The wall displays were huge perspex sheets on which was neatly written in grease pencil (“Chinagraph”) all the information necessary to run the flying business – aircraft and crew location, state of training, tasks, medical fitness, and administrative duties, together with more general information about security and alert states.  In short, all the information necessary for the Squadron to go to war.  In those days, we were completely immune to cyber-attack but we did used to joke that should a malevolent Warsaw Pact agent wish to neutralise the V Bomber effort, all he would have to do would be to break into the Squadron Ops room equipped with a rag and can of methylated spirits and wipe the ops displays clean!

As the Cold War intensified during the 1970s and 80s, so did the resilience of war plans.  The concept of NATO tactical evaluation “TACEVAL” evolved and periodically units would be evaluated at no-notice on their ability to conduct operations under realistic wartime conditions.  Resilience and redundancy were repeatedly tested, it being almost a given that the primary operational management systems would have been “wiped out” at the outset.  In 1982, at the Headquarters of Allied Air Forces Central Europe, I saw the alliance working under exercise conditions at first hand and pretty impressive it was.

So, my first question to BA would be: why do you, apparently, not have a rehearsed plan to revert to basics when the automatics go wrong?  Could it be that automatic systems have become so much a fundamental part of the business that no team of humans understands the mechanics of the business anymore? Forgive me for reverting to Marc Goodman’s excellent book “Future Crimes?”  He observes that:

“Much of the world’s infrastructure utilise supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems to function.  SCADA systems automatically monitor and adjust switching, manufacturing, and other process control activities, based on digitised feedback data gathered by sensors.”

In other words, command and control systems, SCADA, are not only complex, they are fiendishly complicated ie difficult, if not impossible, for humans to comprehend.  Computer power is growing at the same time as our ability to comprehend that data grid and its interconnections is fading.  The cost and complexity of IT systems propels companies to outsource their problems to 3^rd parties.  Whilst this could show short-term financial saving, in the longer term it merely reinforces management remoteness from the systems controlling their business.  Eventually fatigue will set in and humans will just give up trying to understand in rather the same way as pilots did when flight management computers replaced navigators.  Again, Goodman points out that Ray Kurzweil predicts a law of accelerating returns of computer price and performance.  Kurzweil says that there will be a moment when computer progress is so rapid that it outpaces mankind’s ability to comprehend it.  Although Kurzweil says that point will occur in 2045, he may be underestimating progress.  None of this excuses a lack of preparedness for a failure of automation.  However, in the lessons learned from the current crisis, the cost of training to retain a capability for manual reversion will have to be weighed against the compensation costs and medium term (at least) reputational damage to BA.

Turning to the hapless victims who appear to have been badly let down, it is difficult not to feel sympathetic.  Having travelled a fair bit, I have experienced my fair share of disruption.  However, 2 recent incidents are relevant.  A few weeks ago, travelling back to Yorkshire from Kings Cross, I arrived at the station to find all the relevant departures labelled “cancelled” or the scheduled departure left blank.  There was no other information.  There were no tannoy announcements.  The display boards maintained their sullen denials.  None of the train companies thought to send someone into the crowd with a loud-hailer.  The whole uncertainty could have been reduced by a simple announcement on the display board – “get any train North and we will sort out your ticket later.”  In contrast, last year, we arrived at Schiphol en-route to Bergen.  I should have anticipated problems ahead because, as we left the aircraft, the teenage crew were grinning from ear to ear having just completed a full Cat IIIB approach and landing – “we didn’t see anything until the turn off,” said the fresh-faced captain, rather proudly.  We later learned that Schiphol had been almost paralysed with thick and persistent fog and there were very few movements in or out.  Ominous lines of passengers appeared and we prepared ourselves for the worst.  However, as we were looking for the end of the queue, KLM employees were exhorting passengers not to queue but to consult Twitter or Facebook instead.  Of course, not all KLM passengers would be savvy with social media or, indeed have a smart mobile phone.  I classed myself as relatively house trained so gave Twitter a go.  Amazingly, within minutes my personal plight had been acknowledged by KLM customer service and, shortly after, a revised itinerary for a departure the following evening issued.  This enabled us to get away from the airport and find a hotel downtown and, armed with the certainty of our onward travel plans, able to make coordinating arrangements with Hurtigruten and our Norway cruise.  Later, my claim for expenses was also efficiently handled on Twitter.  Overall, a very satisfactory customer experience and rather better than the hollow “extremely sorry” from the Chief Executive.

The secret of KLM’s success is the harnessing of social media. Having proved the concept with the Icelandic volcano disruption, KLM uses “Salesforce” technologies at the heart of their operation.  KLM claims to have transformed into a socially connected business that can intelligently and efficiently collect and track all social conversations on performance, measure brand sentiment, and most relevantly to the current crisis, respond within one hour and resolve within 24. That was certainly my experience.  BA may well feel it has something to learn from Salesforce and, in which case, they should talk to my talented daughter who just happens to work for that Company!

"Prevent"

There has been a lot of discussion about the “Prevent” strategy.  David Aaronovitch thinks that Prevent should not “advocate something as abstract as “British values” (with its implications of non-Britishness within the target community).”  Instead, he proposes promoting democratic values such as free speech and equal rights. Good luck with that at the local Mosque.  Every spokesman I have heard has talked about the “Muslim Community” as if it were something separate in our society.  As long as Muslims see themselves as Muslims first and, possibly, British second then there will always be a haven in which terrorists will be able to conceal themselves.  Under these circumstance, Prevent is mere window-dressing.

This is hardly a revelation.  In 2011, David Cameron in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, said:

“Under the doctrine of multiculturalism we have encouraged different culture to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.  We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that are completely counter to our values.”

Quite so but how much more evidence do we need before we actually do something about the failed concept of multiculturalism?

Dementia Detour Opens Immigration Opportunity

Mrs May says that nothing has changed but she is wrong.  From a strong and stable image, ready to confront the difficult issues, the Conservatives have given the opposition and the press a golden opportunity to represent them as just another strain of cynical political opportunists who, at the first sign of public opinion push-back, retreat to the temporary sanctuary of yet another consultation.

Doubtless, Conservative strategists will be scratching their heads for another crusade to recover the image of a strong and stable government in waiting.  Mushroom has a sure-fire idea to realign the debate to the theme of Conservative management competence.  It is, of course, the unspoken 6^th giant challenge facing the country, immigration, to which she could turn.  Mrs May said she was maintaining Mr Cameron's controversial target to reduce net immigration below 100,000 - something she failed to do in six years as Home Secretary.  Rather than repeat the slogan, however, she should spell out why this is essential for our survival as a Nation (“drowning not waving” would be appropriate now).  She should tell the electorate, straight, about the danger of cultural oblivion if the mistakes of past immigration policies are not corrected and measures put in place to protect our National identity for the future.  For a start, there should be an amnesty for those who question the concept of “cultural enrichment” and a full debate on the lies, half-truths and window dressing of the past.

With immigration and its cultural devastation on the front pages, nobody could accuse the Conservatives of ducking the big and difficult issues. Here’s another suggestion for a slogan – “tough on immigration, tough on the effects of immigration.”