BP oil spill mistake every CEO should learn...

Leaders and their public relations gurus are quick to provide public apologies. They expect those apologies to move people out of their anger, but often they lead to even more criticism and outrage. When you're the leader or chief excecutive of an organization that has made a terrible mistake in some way, people will automatically assume you're sorry, but they'll quickly conclude that you're sorry mainly for yourself, for having been caught in the situation.

Many leaders make matters worse by actually describing, as they apologize, how they themselves have been affected, as if that should somehow connect them with those suffering and create a bond. Instead it usually comes across as self-indulgent, self-serving and lacking in honesty about having been the cause of the situation.

BP chief apologized for having been oblivious to the safety risks of his organization's underwater drilling operations, but his apology was ineffective--not because it wasn't heartfelt but because he was oblivious to what people truly need from a leader, especially in times of crisis.

Why was the nation repeatedly outraged when BP chief went before cameras and then before Congress to utter his famous flat apologies? He and his media experts seemed surprised that his appearances backfired. Yet it was utterly predictable that the approach was doomed from the start. It clearly failed to do what was necessary to repair the relationship between the people and BP.

What do people truly need from their leaders in times of crisis? They need them to step up and answer some relevant simple questions. They must answer them consistently, repeatedly and in multiple ways to truly repair the situation. They must answer with words, actions, plans and follow-through, that follow-through coming from all the leaders of the organization. What people demand from a leader are basically :

1. Do you care about me? No, really. Do you see how this has affected me, my family and my community? Can you put it into words, into specific examples? Have you taken the time to personally witness it from my perspective? As a leader, even if you can't fix it, can you give words to it and be willing to listen while others vent, without explaining, justifying or making false promises? People want to feel heard. They want to be recognized for their suffering. They want to know that you, the leader, see them as individuals and real people. You will end in disaster if you make up story or try to cover up the real fact and that will definitely lead you to your grave.....

2. Can I trust you? Sugarcoating the current reality or painting an idyllic path to a better future does not build trust. People want to know that you are telling them the truth or factual. Will you honestly outline what you know and what you don't know? Speak from a place of pure accountability, and sort out the blame behind closed doors at a later time. A leader needs to fully account for where the situation is at present, how it got there and what the possibilities are for the future. Do not just give the most optimistic options; outline the complete range of potential developments and the plans you have to create results. Be up front about the risks involved, their likelihood and full potential effects and the contingency plans you have in case the worst does happen, as well as in case it doesn't.

3. Are you committed to excellence? Do you have the same standards of excellence as the people you are leading or attempting to serve? People will start questioning whether you are still capable in future to run the company with your handling of crisis or stress maangement. Will you be there for as long as it takes? What does success look like to you? Do you insist on excellence in your business practices? Do you use the best technology and top experts? And are you transparent, allowing access to the media, documenting both your progress and your setbacks? Excellence is not about perfection, it's about commitment to the best possible processes.

It will be hard to repair the cracks in your status should you try to have any cover up or avoid reporting the true fact of the situation. And important to get the correct datas from your team about the facts and figures as everyone will be putting their scope to check and see if the published figures are correctly reported. There are pros' and cons' to whether you should do what it takes and better consult your team of experts within the top management should you run out of options. Likely scenario is someone will be there to replace you when the situation is getting nowhere and the authorities and public are ponding and reporting on your company's credibility and everyday the newspaper is flashing reports of the site situation, hopefully the worst is over for you sooner than later.

25 July 2010 LONDON: British media are reporting that BP chief executive Tony Hayward is negotiating the terms of his departure ahead of the oil company's results announcement this week.

Citing unidentified sources, the BBC and Sunday Telegraph reported that detailed talks regarding Mr Hayward's future had taken place over the weekend. The BBC said a formal announcement on his exit is expected in the next 24 hours.

Asked about the reports, BP spokesman Toby Odone said yesterday that 'Tony Hayward remains BP's chief executive, and he has the confidence of the board and senior management'.

BP's board is scheduled to meet today in London ahead of the company's half-year results announcement tomorrow.

The BBC added that there was a 'strong likelihood' that Mr Hayward would be replaced by Mr Bob Dudley, who took over management of BP's response to the oil spill from Mr Hayward last month.

Mr Hayward has been under heavy criticism over his leadership during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The Sunday Telegraph said there could be wrangling over Mr Hayward's severance package, under which he is likely to be paid a minimum figure of just over £1 million (S$2.1 million).


With events and errors ticked off day by day, hour by hour and then minute by minute as the implacable oil rises from below, the investigation report by BP released on September ( full report could be downloaded from BP website) makes eerie reading. Its tragedy unfolds in four acts, each containing a number of errors: the initial penetration of hydrocarbons into the well through cement seals and physical barriers meant to be impermeable; the subsequent failure to spot that the seals had not worked and that oil and gas were building up in the well as rig workers turned, unaware, to other tasks; the subsequent rig-wrecking explosions; and, at the sea floor, the failure of the blowout preventer to cut off the flow of oil as the rig toppled and its connection to the well below broke open, releasing oil into the Gulf for the next three months. All these findings could be shifting more of the blame to others and looks like BP could be washing it's hands away from some of the "oily" mess.

In the first act, the report claims that Halliburton supplied a cement slurry of its own devising which it should have recognised was not fit for the purpose. Subsequent testing showed that the cement produced by a similar slurry (Halliburton’s own was apparently not made available) would have been likely to break down. BP’s well team, the report goes on, failed to appreciate the challenges of the cementing, to assess the risks and to make sure it knew what was going on. Analysis by Halliburton suggested that extra “centralisers”, which keep the pipe that transports the oil in the right position, were needed. BP procured them but did not use them, its well team suspecting, wrongly, that they were the wrong sort. The report concludes that this error is unlikely to have been key to the cement failure, but it is a pretty striking mistake and others will likely differ on its significance. The team then failed to run a test, or log, to show that the cement seal was OK, a failure that has already been criticised by others.

In the second and third acts, after the hydrocarbons had got through valves at the bottom of the well, the focus shifts to Transocean, and at times to decisions made by people who died in the disaster. When the heavy drilling mud that provides the pressure needed to keep things from coming up the well was removed, first as a test, then as part of procedure for closing down the well and moving the rig, telltale signs that something was wrong were missed. When the oil and gas reached the rig, they were diverted not overboard, as might have been wiser, but to a system called the mud-gas separator which was overwhelmed and spewed gas back on to parts of the rig that did not have safeguards on their electronics to minimise the chance of ignition, as the systems on the drilling floor did.

Then there was the blowout preventer, a huge stack of valves on the sea floor. When one of its valves was activated, after people realised something was wrong and just before the explosion, it did not stop the flow. Nor did it shut off the flow when its connections to the rig were lost, as it should have. Nor when a remotely operated vehicle activated it later. Studies of the blowout preventer’s control pods suggest that a flattish battery and a dodgy valve meant that neither was in a fit state to close off the well automatically when they should have, which BP takes as evidence of poor maintenance by Transocean. This does not explain why the great valves failed even when they were activated by other means. More answers may be forthcoming now the blowout preventer has been raised from the sea floor; currently in the custody of the Department of Justice, it may be a forensic treasure.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Transocean rejects the report as self-serving, and points to issues with the well’s design, as well as to the cement log, as deserving much more scrutiny. Other oil companies have also pointed to BP’s decision to run a single “long string” of production pipe from the top of the well to the bottom as a problem, claiming that an alternative approach which puts a physical barrier around the production pipe at an intermediate depth offers greater safety. The issue is clearly an important one, but it is not clear that in itself it made a crucial difference. If oil got into the production pipe from the bottom, then barriers that would have impeded its flow up the cavity around that pipe would have made little difference.


##########################################################################
Business Times Sept2010
Keppel built the 'right' rig in Gulf of Mexico


(SINGAPORE) Keppel Corporation did not build the oil rig that exploded, sank and caused a major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that damaged marine and wildlife habitats as well as the Gulf's fishing and tourism industries.

On the contrary, the Singapore yard provided the rig from which efforts to plug the spill were mounted.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was told of this by a Keppel executive in Houston recently - and he used the story last night in his National Day Rally speech to make a point: companies must find promising opportunities, develop expertise, create value and grow a competitive and profitable business.

It's one key role that they can play in Singapore's push for higher productivity growth.

Singapore rigbuilders have clearly carved a niche in the global business. Mr Lee pointed out that Keppel, along with Sembcorp Marine, another Singapore company, produces 70 per cent of the world's oil rigs.

And it's clear that Keppel is good at what it does.
Mr Lee employed diagrams to show how massive the operation is to plug the well from where the oil is spilt into the Gulf of Mexico.

'Keppel built the Q4000 platform, from which engineers carried out the 'top kill' operation,' he said.

SembMarine also played a role in the rescue. Mr Lee noted that there are two other platforms, one built by SembMarine and the other by Keppel, to drill relief wells to seal the well with concrete and achieve a 'bottom kill'.

'Not bad for a country with no oil, but we're there,' he said.

And it explains why Keppel and SembMarine have been paying good bonuses to workers - nine months' last year - and 'several hundred million dollars' in taxes to the government yearly.

'That's productivity,' Mr Lee said

Well control and completion

Drilling & Well Completion

Once the design well depth is reached, the formation must be tested and evaluated to determine whether the well will be completed for production, or plugged and abandoned.

To complete the well production, casing is installed and cemented and the drilling rig is dismantled and moved to the next site.

A service rig is brought in to perforate the production casing and run production tubing. If no further pre-production servicing is needed, the christmas tree is installed and production begins.

Well completion activities include:

Conducting Drill Stem Test

Setting Production Casing

Installing Production Tubing

Starting Production Flow

After production starts, the well may need further servicing.

If it's decided that the well will not be completed, then it will be plugged and abandoned.

Conducting drill stem test :

To determine the potential of a producing formation, the operator may order a drill stem test (DST). The DST crew makes up the test tool on the bottom of the drill stem, then lowers it to the bottom of the hole. Weight is applied to the tool to expand a hard rubber sealer called a packer. Opening the tool ports allows the formation pressure to be tested. This process enables workers to determine whether the well can be produced.

Potential Hazards:

Being pinched or struck by the drill stem test tools during floor operations.

Swabbing the hole on the way out with the test tool could cause a kick to occur, which could result in a blowout leading to injuries and deaths.

Being exposed to unexpected release of H2S or other gases or liquids.

A packer seat failure or fluid loss to an upper formation could cause a kick that might result in a blowout causing injuries and deaths.

Other hazards are similar to those encountered during trippingout/in.

Possible Solutions:

Wear appropriate PPE.

Instruct workers in handling and using the special tools required during drill stem testing.

Keep a method for filling the hole in place at all times. Before any test starts, the rig management must ensure that the blow-out prevention system includes a kill system that is capable of pumping fluid into the well below the annular preventer and at least on-set of pipe rams.

Run a pump-out-sub or downhole circulating device in the test string to to enable the system to be reversed.

Ensure all workers on the location understand the dangers before starting any drill stem test. They should be fully informed of and trained in appropriate safety procedures, including the use of safety equipment and breathing apparatus. If in an H2S area, post a sign indicating the test in full view for the general public to see. Post reliable people to stop them from coming to the location. Define a minimum of two muster points with all vehicles parked in an appointed area.

Setting Production Casing:

Production casing is the final casing in a well. It can be set from the bottom to the top. Sometimes a production liner is installed.

This casing is set the same as other casings, then cemented in place.

See Casing Operations and Cementing for more information on specific hazards and solutions.

Installing Production Tubing:
A well is usually produced through tubing inserted down the production casing. Oil and gas is produced more effectively through this smaller-diameter tubing than through the large-diameter production casing.


Joints of tubing are joined together with couplings to make up a tubing string. Tubing is run into the well much the same as casing, but tubing is smaller in diameter and is removable.

The steps for this activity are:

Tubing elevators are used to lift tubing from the rack to the rig floor.

The joint is stabbed into the string, which is suspended in the well, with air slips.
Power tongs are used to make-up tubing.
This process is repeated until tubing installation is complete.

The tubing hanger is installed at the wellhead.
New technology allows tubing to be manufactured in a continuous coil, without joints. Coiled tubing is inserted into the well down the production casing without the need for tongs, slips, or elevators, which takes considerably less time to run

More about subsea BOP controls :

What Should Happen during a blowout and steps to shut the well after you fail to "kill" it :

In a blowout, a rig worker presses an emergency button. A signal is sent from the rig down an electrical line to one of the control pods.  The BOP is a subsea blowout preventer which could be anything more than few thousands feet below sea level.

The control pod directs hydraulic fluid from the rig and from a bank of pressurized canisters, called accumulators … … through a valve, called a shuttle valve, and into the blind shear ram. Some blowout preventers have a separate emergency system with its own shuttle valve.

The blind shear ram under high hydraulic pressure cuts or shear through the drill pipe and seals the well, preventing oil from gushing out.

Why 2010 business and economic outlook still gloomy ?

Why are many firms still currently so cautious in business outlook? One likely factor is that they regard the present stale economy as highly uncertain, particularly in the US and Europe. The recent combination of volatility and a declining trend in developed-world stockmarkets has reinforced concerns that already abounded in companies’ executive suites, that the recovery so far has relied too much on government spending. That, given all the recent political talk about the need for public austerity to fend off bond-market vigilantes, may not continue. Meanwhile, private-sector demand remains anaemic.

A second factor is that firms have much less need to invest now because their capacity utilisation remains at historically low levels, so you do not need more resuorces as you got nothing much to output as demand is still slow in picking up. Currently, for example, industrial-capacity utilisation in US is 73%. That is up from the recessionary low of 69%, but well below the 80%-plus level it was at in the years before the economic meltdown in September 2008, and during much of the 1990s. Since plants still have so much spare capacity, managers see little justification for capital spending. It is forecasted that in developed countries, industry’s capital spending will fall by 3% this year after a 10% fall last year. In emerging markets, capex is expected to grow by 8% this year but far short of last year’s roaring 21% growth.

MARKETS seem to be emerging from a bad patch of turbulence and the past two months have seen wild swings across global financial markets that would have unsettled even the most seasoned of investors. Europe may have averted disaster but its sovereign debt problems are far from over. In China, the yuan is finally unshackled from the dollar but it remains to be seen how far it will be allowed to gain on the greenback.

For sure, a range-bound market characterised by much volatility was pretty much a given this year as the global economy faced its biggest test since the depths of March 2009. With government stimulus petering out, the question was always whether private investment and consumption had mended sufficiently to take over the mantle of championing global growth. Strong emerging market growth is set against lagging expansion in the West, while Asia's inflation-fighting policy-makers square off against Europe's fiscally tied hands.

As it stands, Asian governments, faced with the threat of inflation, have started to normalise fiscal and monetary policies. China, in particular, has moved fairly aggressively to curb the rapid rise of real estate prices. In contrast, those in the West have been fairly content to retain stimulatory policies - at least until Europe's sovereign debt crisis erupted. Beginning with what seemed like a peripheral problem, the continent - and the world - was sucked into a spiral of anxiety as sovereign solvency fears spread beyond Greece. Efforts by EU policy-makers appear to have successfully stabilised the contagion.

In second half of 2010, the global recovery could be on track and fears of a double-dip recession are likely overstated. Concerns that Europe's fiscal problems may spark a liquidity crunch of post-Lehman proportions might be fast fading, and upcoming stress-test results for the region's banks should go some way towards nullifying those fears. While banks are lending to one another at higher interest rates, perceiving greater counter-party risks, the actual risk premiums demanded are not worryingly high by historic measures. In any case, the European Central Bank appears committed to pump in as much liquidity as is needed to prevent a shortage.

On the other hand, medium-term worries about an over-leveraged global economy are probably warranted. Public debt in the developed world has ballooned as governments deploy massive amounts of fiscal stimulus to prop up economic activity. Fiscal deficits are starting to reach unsustainable levels that necessitate spending cuts that are likely to be a drag on economic growth, especially in the industrialised nations, for many years to come. Still, the effects of such fiscal tightening are unlikely to be felt immediately and may well be overcome eventually by gathering momentum in the global recovery.

Indeed, emerging markets, especially in Asia, are likely to continue to grow strongly, and that seems to be underscored by China's move to allow greater flexibility in the yuan exchange rate. While actual latitude for yuan appreciation has been fairly limited and gradual, the policy change seems to signal that policy-makers are at least more confident about the outlook for the domestic economy. In addition, monetary tightening in Asia may be delayed. Europe's sovereign debt problems are likely to prompt policy-makers to be a tad more circumspect about global growth, and hold off raising rates until later in the year, or even next year. In the US, momentum from the first half of the year is expected to be sufficient to keep activity growing through the rest of the year, albeit at a more moderate pace. Unsurprisingly, Europe is set to bring up the rear. Growth is expected to be sluggish as fiscal tightening is expected to be a significant drag even into 2011.

Economic contraction is often thought to cause corporate revenue and earnings to fall sharply, missing current forecasts. On examining major double dips in various markets in the past 30 years, it is believe that markets may be too focused on the top line. Company profits, then, are likely to be more resilient than expected, even if the economy tanks again.

Current price-earnings valuations seem to imply a brutal double dip in which the economy contracts even more than in 2008-009, down one per cent in nominal GDP terms in both 2011 and 2012. Even in such a severe scenario, corporate earnings would be expected to grow more than 10 per cent in 2010, before declining 10 per cent in 2011 and 2 per cent in 2012 - much less than the 56 per cent plunge in 2008-09.

Still, it could take some time for markets to realise that a double dip is not a probable scenario and that corporate earnings are likely to be more resilient if it does happen. In the meantime, volatility is likely to persist, calling for nimble toes - and fingers, while an uneven recovery warrants judicious market selection and stock-picking.  These moments of volatility may yield good trading opportunities - and are unlikely to derail the fundamentally bullish long-run outlook for emerging markets. Even if China, and Asia overall, prove unable to escape the cycle of bubble, these economies remain well-placed to continue strong growth over the next few decades. Against this backdrop, emerging markets remain preferred over developed ones, as investors are likely to recognise their strong economic fundamentals and keep capital flowing into these more vibrant markets. Among the developed markets, the US is looking the most attractive, buoyed by robust economic momentum of its economy.

In conclusion, balancing risk to opportunity is going to be key to portfolio performance where equity markets are expected to remain volatile and range-bound for at least the rest of the year. Even though we remain optimistic about the long-term prospects for emerging markets, especially in Asia, and remain cyclically positive on the US, events in Europe do present significant short-term threats to the recovery. In this scenario, it is even more important to ensure that diversification and regular risk assessments remain a fundamental anchor to ensure balanced growth in one's portfolio in these interesting times.

How managers make good decisions...

What is termed a “good” decision?

Some of these elements go into a good decision:

Make sure you’re solving the right problem in the first place. It is important we understand the problem and not make any premature assumption. Jumping into conclusion will lead to failure in making what is right or wrong. Be clear about what you are looking at. For example, are you trying to maximize profit margin or just trying to stay alive and minimize loss? Gathering the right information, including information about uncertainty, which is essential if you want to choose the best option.  Reasoning out the right choice and includes what you know and what you don’t.  A commitment to make it happen, since a decision is no stronger than its weakest link.

Where do leaders fall down when making decisions?

They fall down on all these elements. In some organizations, managers don’t get the information they need to make a decision, so they end up having to make decisions based on experience and intuition or wrong feedback from subordinates. Sometimes distorted information were passed on to the management level thus leading to wrong decision made.

Does personality type determine decision making?

Yes, people become aware of their natural biases and habits, it becomes easier to avoid them. People may tend to procrastinate or focus on the big picture and the creative part. Your habits will get you in trouble if you don’t watch out and most people drag a problem into their comfort zone instead of solving it.

How do you evaluate the success of your framework?

Here’s how we figure out if it made a difference: We take a decision and try to document what people would have done otherwise, which is called the momentum strategy. Then we compare the best choice they make with us to the momentum strategy they would have used. We can now say pretty clearly that our approach avoids lots of downside errors. It avoids value destruction and creates a lot of value. Most people leave a lot of value on the table when they make intuitive decisions.

Managers basically make these types of decisions:

Strategic decisions- Managers have weeks or months to make these decisions, which have life-shaping effects on a organizational or management level. Strategic decisions are very important, involve significant uncertainty and complexity, and are hard to think through. Such decisions are costly and it may require various levels of brainstorming before the final "say" is made.

Typical decisions- These decisions often come from team meetings that last a few hours. They can have a big impact, but they are frequently tactical in nature and arrived at through a collaborative process. Usually these are made day-to-day so that the project or work process are not held up by delay in decision making.

In-the-moment decisions- For decisions made on the fly, managers use a different part of the brain that emphasizes rapid pattern recognition. Beginning with limited or incomplete information, they habitually look for similarities to experiences they’ve had in the past.

Facing Risk of Cyber War !

New technologies have revolutionised warfare, sometimes abruptly, sometimes only gradually: think of the gunpowder, aircraft, radar and nuclear fission and some have been working alongside computer information technology. The internet have transformed economies and given Western armies great advantages, such as the ability to send remotely piloted aircraft across the world to gather intelligence and attack targets within accuracy of a few meters range after travelled few thousand kilometers. However the spread of digital technology comes at a cost and it exposes armies and societies to “digital- 010010110” attack.

The threat is complex and potentially very dangerous and modern societies are ever more reliant on computer systems linked to the internet, giving enemies more avenues of attack. If power stations, refineries, banks and air-traffic-control systems were brought down, people would lose their lives. Yet there are few, if any, rules in cyberspace of the kind that govern behaviour, even warfare, in other domains. As with nuclear- and conventional-arms control, big countries should start talking about how to reduce the threat from cyberwar, the aim being to restrict attacks before it is too late.

Cyberspace has become one of the domains of warfare, after land, sea, air and space. Imagine the failure of the systems that keep the modern world turning and as computer networks collapse, factories and chemical plants explode, satellites spin out of control and the financial and power grids all come to a halt. That seems most threatening to all, yet most agree that infiltrating networks is pretty easy for those who have the will, means and the time to spare. Experts know this because they are such enthusiastic hackers themselves. Spies frequently break into computer systems to steal information by the warehouse load, whether it is from Google or defence contractors. The cyber-attacks on Estonia in 2007 and on Georgia in 2008 (the latter strangely happened to coincide with the advance of Russian troops across the Caucasus) are widely assumed to have been directed by the Kremlin, but they could be traced only to Russian cyber-criminals. Many of the computers used in the attack belonged to innocent Americans whose PCs had been hijacked. Companies suspect China of organising mini-raids to ransack Western know-how: but it could just have easily been Western criminals, computer-hackers showing off or disillusioned former employees. One reason why Western governments have until recently been reticent about cyber-espionage is surely because they are dab hands at it, too.

As with nuclear bombs, the existence of cyber-weapons does not in itself mean they are about to be used. Moreover, an attacker cannot be sure what effect an assault will have on another country, making their deployment highly risky. That is a drawback for sophisticated military machines, but not necessarily for terrorists or the armies of rogue states. And it leaves the dangers of online crime and espionage.

All this makes for dangerous instability. Cyber-weapons are being developed secretly, without discussion of how and when they might be used. Nobody knows their true power, so countries must prepare for the worst. Anonymity adds to the risk that mistakes, misattribution and miscalculation will lead to military escalation—with conventional weapons or cyberarms. The speed with which electronic attacks could be launched gives little time for cool-headed reflection and favours early, even pre-emptive, attack. Even as computerised weapons systems and wired infantry have blown away some of the fog of war from the battlefield, they have covered cyberspace in a thick, menacing blanket of uncertainty.

One response to this growing threat has been military. Iran claims to have the world’s second-largest cyber-army. Russia, Israel and North Korea boast efforts of their own. America has set up its new Cyber Command both to defend its networks and devise attacks on its enemies. NATO is debating the extent to which it should count cyberwar as a form of “armed attack” that would oblige its members to come to the aid of an ally.

But the world needs cyberarms-control as well as cyber- deterrence. America has until recently resisted weapons treaties for cyberspace for fear that they could lead to rigid global regulation of the internet, undermining the dominance of American internet companies, stifling innovation and restricting the openness that underpins the net. Perhaps America also fears that its own cyberwar effort has the most to lose if its well-regarded cyberspies and cyber-warriors are reined in.

Such thinking at last shows signs of changing, and a good thing too. America, as the country most reliant on computers, is probably most vulnerable to cyber-attack. Its conventional military power means that foes will look for asymmetric lines of attack. And the wholesale loss of secrets through espionage risks eroding its economic and military lead.
Maybe the economic crisis and oil spill saga are the least to worry for now, let's start looking at our IT infrastructure, our network lines, our fast speed cable, etc.........  and who knows, the North and South Koreans may not be looking at "solid" weapons launching but "soft-launch" attack through the cyberspace.

Recently early July2010, DBS Bank's computer system broke down with a technology glitch and has disrupted business and raised some customers' hackles.  But it is a timely reminder that systems can - and do - go down and such incidence could be linked to "cyber attack" or either techno fault and till the investigation result is out, it is either a good guess.

A quick scan of news headlines reveals the downside of the technological workhorses that businesses, governments and the general public have become so dependent on. 'Asia stock plunge raises alarm on trading'; 'Nikkei slump caused by bank system fault'; 'Computer glitch slows air travel'; 'FAA computer glitch delays flights across region'; 'Million users hit by Yahoo/Google/Baidu shutdown'; and on and on.

Computer failure has caused city-wide power outages, aborted rocket launches, forced large-scale vehicle recalls, and triggered airplane and train malfunctions and crashes. Seen in that context, the loss of access to bank ATMs and online banking facilities might not seem as critical.  What if all these are triggered by someone out there who has hacked into the system vault and managed to carry out an attack on the software system ?

And what if, despite all reasonable effort, a system glitch occurs? The principle remains the same: a contract has been broken, trust has been breached, and immediate steps should be taken to redeem the contract and restore that trust. Restoring the system in the shortest possible time is an essential first step; but equally important is keeping the customer in the know - not in the dark - right from the beginning. An immediate announcement that the system is down, accompanied by an apology - it's not so difficult, really.

And going forward, the post-mortem, the search for the reasons for the breakdown, should be transparent. What were the exact factors that caused the crash? What could the organisation, and the technology provider, have done better? The customer deserves to know. Of course, prevention is better than cure. So, hopefully, the recent bank system breakdown will provide fresh impetus to other organisations to review their own networks and processes. Not just dollars would be saved - possibly lives too if the extent of hacking into the vault is tantamount beyond ones imagination.