Skip to main content

Nightmare scenario

I don't often have nightmares, but when I do, of late, they have had two themes. Some involve sitting my Natural Sciences finals exams, only I haven't revised since 1976. (For some reason it's never my Masters exams from the year after.) And the others put me back with my previous employer, British Airways. What used to be a great place to work has become a seen of hatred between workers and management.

I suspect I know why both of these are occurring. As an RLF Literary Fellow I am currently helping science students at Bristol University with their writing skills - and for third years it is that terrifying time of year. As for the BA nightmares, I'm afraid, while exaggerated, it reflects the way the airline is shooting itself in the foot.

When I was at BA, the IT department (then known as IM for Information Management), was central to the airline's success. The IM director, for example, was a full board member. And this was because sensible airlines knew just how important their ICT systems were to survival. Our biggest American rival used to say that it was a booking system company that happened to fly planes.

There are two big factors behind this importance attributed to ICT. One was, indeed, the booking system. Written a language rarely used outside airlines and banks, designed for ultra-fast high levels of transactions, it needed a small army of programmers trained in this very specialist language. The second was scheduling and yield management. Airlines have complex schedules, which have to change at a moment's notice, and airlines led the field in the business of changing the price of seats over time to maximise revenue. There were plenty of other reasons too, from the way that the newest technology was often employed in the airline business to managing a huge and complex engineering business, where safety was paramount.

It was always possible that some of the ICT business could sensibly be outsourced. But the core aspects were the company's crown jewels. Yet, now, much of that business is being sent offshore, and many of the key workers are leaving or being transferred to an external company. It clearly is a nightmare for those who work there. But I also think there is the distinct danger that it could become a nightmare for the company, which used to be a world leader in this field. And that would be a shame indeed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense