The great Natwest/RBS banking cock-up

[Clinton Huxley]

No one ever faces the music. Or, if they do, it will be some lowly minions. The people in charge will simply be given more money.

That's the great thing about this from a management/ consultant/ cloud provider perspective. Responsibility and accountability just falls into the numerous cracks that exist between the various organisations involved. I've seen it happen myself.

As a manager I have to challenge this. Trust me, as the author of..err...occasionally sub-optimal solutions I get to carry the can.

[klr]

http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/218 ... are-expert

NatWest glitch is the inevitable result of declining coding standards, claims software expert

"As long as it functions, let it go" is the current mantra of IT departments, senior director of US-based software implementation firm CAST Research Labs, Jay Sappidi, told Computing in response to the ongoing customer account-freezing software glitch at NatWest and RBS banks.

The problem, which RBS Group has said is the result of a software upgrade in its payment system, is an example of a coding quality issue endemic across the IT industry, according to Sappidi.

"We're talking about a common problem here," said Sappidi. "One of the high-profile ones in the recent past was NASDAQ in the Facebook IP. What's happening is that systems are becoming more complex, and becoming integral to doing business. Unfortunately, the quality of software has not kept pace with this level of importance.

"Because we're all in such a hurry to get code out, people will tend to say they wanted it yesterday," said Sappidi. "So what IT departments skip or compromise is checking the actual quality of the code."

"As long as it functions, let it go. That's the mantra right now. That's the philosophy of current IT departments," Sappidi added.

Comparing the current code quality checking process to "the way it was with cars back in the 60s and 70s", rather than the current ability of the automobile industry to quality check individual components, Sappidi warned the industry that quality of "actual software components" must be focused on, instead of just basic checking for functionality before releasing to customers.

"When you touch one part of the system, it's obviously going to impact other systems," Sappidi told Computing. "It's going to have an effect somewhere else."

Sappidi, whose company has worked on implementation systems for large banks in the past, finds the situation frustrating. "There are tools that people can use and integrate into the development cycle to check not just if it's functioning but if it's being built robustly and can stand up five or 10 years from now," he told Computing.

Declining coding standards? More like declining design and testing standards. He's right about the complexity though.

No one ever faces the music. Or, if they do, it will be some lowly minions. The people in charge will simply be given more money.

That's the great thing about this from a management/ consultant/ cloud provider perspective. Responsibility and accountability just falls into the numerous cracks that exist between the various organisations involved. I've seen it happen myself.

As a manager I have to challenge this. Trust me, as the author of..err...occasionally sub-optimal solutions I get to carry the can.

I salute you and your organization in this respect.

[Clinton Huxley]

Managers are broadly equivalent to people!

[Audley Strange]

Actual managers or those useless twats that get shoved into middle management because they're not great at what they're meant to do, but not bad enough to fire? Banking if filled with those clowns.

[Clinton Huxley]

Actual managers or those useless twats that get shoved into middle management because they're not great at what they're meant to do, but not bad enough to fire? Banking if filled with those clowns.

What an unoriginal opinion! As a manager I can state with authority that a lot of direct reports are....pretty poor.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

To really screw things up you need a line manager, an account manager and a business analyst to decide that they can put the changes live without consulting the programmer

[Clinton Huxley]

To really screw things up you need a line manager, an account manager and a business analyst to decide that they can put the changes live without consulting the programmer

I've met a lot of programmers and he percentage of them that are idiots is about the same as he percentage of line managers who are idiots. So I'd blame it mostly on the business analysts.

[Schneibster]

I'm gonna have to say that there are a number of additional factors at work here that require consideration:
1. Outsourcing to India means accepting India's work standards. They are very different from those in the US and Europe; there is little in the way of commitment to the product, the team, or the company. If a mistake happens the SOP is not to identify and fix it, it's to find someone to blame. Fixing it is secondary, and in some cases not even that important. And that's neither snark nor racism; it's a different culture and they have different values. It's up to us to adjust things for that, not them. If we want to outsource to them, anyway.
2. The entire point of outsourcing is not to pay as much; and of course, you get what you pay for, especially when you sideline a generation of architects and pretend you don't need them, and they retire and walk away shaking their heads like I did.
3. Banksters are idiots about tech. As soon as they get their fingers into the projects, you get dumbass stuff like the guys who insisted that we run both 100MB and GB on the same wire. No, guys, we don't care how much money you think you saved, this just doesn't work, and it's not a software problem and it's not a hardware problem and nobody promised you it would. Spend ten bucks a system more and get another NIC, you don't have a choice and you can't sue about it.

[Pappa]

http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/218 ... are-expert

NatWest glitch is the inevitable result of declining coding standards, claims software expert

"As long as it functions, let it go" is the current mantra of IT departments, senior director of US-based software implementation firm CAST Research Labs, Jay Sappidi, told Computing in response to the ongoing customer account-freezing software glitch at NatWest and RBS banks.

The problem, which RBS Group has said is the result of a software upgrade in its payment system, is an example of a coding quality issue endemic across the IT industry, according to Sappidi.

"We're talking about a common problem here," said Sappidi. "One of the high-profile ones in the recent past was NASDAQ in the Facebook IP. What's happening is that systems are becoming more complex, and becoming integral to doing business. Unfortunately, the quality of software has not kept pace with this level of importance.

"Because we're all in such a hurry to get code out, people will tend to say they wanted it yesterday," said Sappidi. "So what IT departments skip or compromise is checking the actual quality of the code."

"As long as it functions, let it go. That's the mantra right now. That's the philosophy of current IT departments," Sappidi added.

Comparing the current code quality checking process to "the way it was with cars back in the 60s and 70s", rather than the current ability of the automobile industry to quality check individual components, Sappidi warned the industry that quality of "actual software components" must be focused on, instead of just basic checking for functionality before releasing to customers.

"When you touch one part of the system, it's obviously going to impact other systems," Sappidi told Computing. "It's going to have an effect somewhere else."

Sappidi, whose company has worked on implementation systems for large banks in the past, finds the situation frustrating. "There are tools that people can use and integrate into the development cycle to check not just if it's functioning but if it's being built robustly and can stand up five or 10 years from now," he told Computing.

Declining coding standards? More like declining design and testing standards. He's right about the complexity though.

No one ever faces the music. Or, if they do, it will be some lowly minions. The people in charge will simply be given more money.

That's the great thing about this from a management/ consultant/ cloud provider perspective. Responsibility and accountability just falls into the numerous cracks that exist between the various organisations involved. I've seen it happen myself.

As a manager I have to challenge this. Trust me, as the author of..err...occasionally sub-optimal solutions I get to carry the can.

I salute you and your organization in this respect.

A lot of what that guy's saying seems to me to be a swipe at modern development methodologies.... and a misplaced one too. Most commercial development nowadays uses incremental development practices, rolling out one piece of functionality at a time, planning new features as the project develops to meet demand, rather than the more traditional way of planning the project down to the tiniest detail before development starts, and delivering a finished product at the end. As such, incrementally developed software is never really finished, and it also needs to be more flexible from the outset. The Natwest/RBS problem is simply a failure in their commitment to the testing and QA process.

[Ayaan]

Schneibster, it's not just bankers who are idiots about tech. I sometimes wonder if the upper management where I work has ever used a computer. One simple task-fixing a problem with a prescription requires four different programs from four different companies - and one of the programs requires from three to nine windows of it to be open to do your job efficiently. I think they've spent more on getting those programs to work together than they would have on just one program that did the job easily.

(And I work at a Fortune 500 company.)

[Mallardz]

Mine works I was hoping I could withdraw all my funds and that wouldn't update. Then repeat.

[Schneibster]

Schneibster, it's not just bankers who are idiots about tech. I sometimes wonder if the upper management where I work has ever used a computer. One simple task-fixing a problem with a prescription requires four different programs from four different companies - and one of the programs requires from three to nine windows of it to be open to do your job efficiently. I think they've spent more on getting those programs to work together than they would have on just one program that did the job easily.

(And I work at a Fortune 500 company.)

They were in a big hurry to outsource and get rid of all those expensive programmers they had to pay all that money to.

Now the programmers are all retired and nobody knows how anything works anymore, and everything's done in India and they can't get them to follow anything that even smells like TQM. Or care what it is. Or even be interested in whether the software they crank out works or not. Give them the money, they're done. See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya. Sucker.

In about another two to three years, they'll be growing so fast they won't know what to do with all their money, and they'll offer enough to tempt me out of retirement to come help again. And "enough" will be between five and ten times what they were paying me before. Because otherwise, so sorry, I got all these other things to do that are much more fun, much more interesting, and nobody yells at me if they don't work out.

So much for outsourcing. It's like contracting, only there's no money you can pay them to make them care. At least if you pay a contractor they stay bribed. After the shit they pulled, that's assuming of course that you can find one you can pay any money at all to give a shit about your problem. If you're a bank most of them are gonna go, so sorry, how are things over in India? That's a shame, gee sorry I got a tee time at three o'clock, have a nice day.

[Ayaan]

Ii is just that bad where I work. If you happen to lock up you computer by entering the wrong password you have to call the help center in India - and since locking up the computer also locks you out of your programs, a call to the help line takes at least 30 minutes. I'm told that once-upon-a-time an onsite IT person could do it in under three minutes. The IT people onsite can't do it - they are now there only to keep the hardware running. If it's a software issue of any sort, up to and including a total system crash (such as happened about a month ago), you have to call the help center in India. There are times when outsourcing can be a good thing, but in this case it looks like they are spending a dollar to save a dime.

[mistermack]

Like I said in my ten commandments, when I am in charge, there will be no bonus payments whatsoever in the financial sector.
Earning a bonus means getting your bottom-line figure to look good on paper. That's all you need.
And bonuses are so big, you don't NEED to worry about problems that are put off, and building up at the head of the dam. You get your massive bonus, who cares if it all goes down the drain.
They can't take it back if you've spent it.

You can bet your life that this problem has been pointed out in the past, and ignored, so that the bottom line doesn't suffer, and bonuses can be justified.

[klr]

Schneibster, it's not just bankers who are idiots about tech. I sometimes wonder if the upper management where I work has ever used a computer. One simple task-fixing a problem with a prescription requires four different programs from four different companies - and one of the programs requires from three to nine windows of it to be open to do your job efficiently. I think they've spent more on getting those programs to work together than they would have on just one program that did the job easily.

(And I work at a Fortune 500 company.)

They were in a big hurry to outsource and get rid of all those expensive programmers they had to pay all that money to.

Now the programmers are all retired and nobody knows how anything works anymore, and everything's done in India and they can't get them to follow anything that even smells like TQM. Or care what it is. Or even be interested in whether the software they crank out works or not. Give them the money, they're done. See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya. Sucker.

In about another two to three years, they'll be growing so fast they won't know what to do with all their money, and they'll offer enough to tempt me out of retirement to come help again. And "enough" will be between five and ten times what they were paying me before. Because otherwise, so sorry, I got all these other things to do that are much more fun, much more interesting, and nobody yells at me if they don't work out.

So much for outsourcing. It's like contracting, only there's no money you can pay them to make them care. At least if you pay a contractor they stay bribed. After the shit they pulled, that's assuming of course that you can find one you can pay any money at all to give a shit about your problem. If you're a bank most of them are gonna go, so sorry, how are things over in India? That's a shame, gee sorry I got a tee time at three o'clock, have a nice day.

Exactly.