Failed Software Upgrade Halts Transit Service 125
linuxwrangler writes "San Francisco Bay Area commuters awoke this morning to the news that BART, the major regional transit system which carries hundreds of thousands of daily riders, was entirely shut down due to a computer failure. Commuters stood stranded at stations and traffic backed up as residents took to the roads. The system has returned to service and BART says the outage resulted from a botched software upgrade."
Strange times (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BART (Score:4, Insightful)
"BART is run by the dumbest people on Earth."
Well, you really do have to wonder when they say they worked through the whole night only to discover that this new, mysterious problem was caused by the updated they'd made the night before.
I mean, wow. Wouldn't that be the first thing that popped into your mind?
Re:Strange times (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:BART (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, BART is not exactly a metro system like in Boston, Chicago, or New York. It's somewhere between a metro and commuter rail, but closer to the latter. It's a product of 1960s thinking, where people were trying to deal with the population shift out of the urban core. So part of the idea was to create high-speed transit from bed-room communities to downtown Oakland and San Francisco.
Connecting the airports probably never figured much into the equation. It wasn't built to supplement the transportation needs of carless San Francisco residents. It was built to shuttle people around the Bay Area. If you needed to get to the airport, you got there like everybody else--you drove your car.
Re:Strange times (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, it probably makes more sense to have a QA lab set up if one is going to operate this way, so that one can test a rollout in advance, hopefully forestalling such problems going live.
And that's pretty hopeful. The thing is, in the real world, you just don't test all your patches. You can't; in any non-trivially sized network you're going to have hundreds of them to go through every week, and the workload is the same for a small or large business. That's why large businesses tend to do better (strangely enough) than small ones when it comes to patch management. And this is an attitude that is backed up by the numbers -- I would say over 9 times out of 10, a break/fix patch has no consequences being pushed into the production environment. It goes out. The version increments. The end. It's that 1 time that screws everyone up -- but it happens infrequently enough that management doesn't update its policies.
Most managers operate under a triage approach to maintenance -- that is, throw resources at a problem when something breaks and complaints start coming in, rather than throwing resources at prevention. In the short run, this is the right approach -- in a crisis you want all hands on deck. The problem is that over time, neglecting preventative maintenance procedures, which show up only as a cost without a defined benefit, results in departments moving to a triage model all the time. Basically, the problem is short-term prioritization over long-term cost reduction.
And I've seen it in almost every IT department I've worked for. I've even sat down with managers and explained to them that when 35% of their workflow is emergency break/fix and that number is trending upwards, we have a process control issue. They invariably agree with me, but say they can't get out from under the workload. Of course, when I come back three months later and it's now at 47% and the workload is now a third higher, they say the same thing.
I would lay money that this is how project management is happening at BART, and it has now deteriorated to the point where its starting to impact its core business. The problem is, while it is still likely at a point where effective project management can right this sinking ship... it almost never happens. Unfortunately, the solution most of the time here is to throw someone under the bus, blaming them for the failure, and insisting that as the system has worked up until this point, it does not need an overhaul.
They couldn't be more wrong; But unfortunately it will take several people being thrown under the bus and a few more high-profile failures before senior management fires the mid-level manager responsible for the project and brings on someone with a strong background in project management and they restructure their department from the ground up following the best practices of change management. Of course, they'll over-do it in the attempt and the pendulum will have to start swinging back the other way, but... that's what happens.