Category Archives: Embarrassing Trainwrecks

An Enron Zombie rises from the grave

The IT Compliance Institute carries a story on their website as of 6th July that like the monster in all good horror movies, Enron has had one last spurt of scandalousness.

“After nearly $89 million was paid to former Enron employees to replace money they lost in employee stock ownership and 401(k) plans when the company collapsed in 2001, nearly $22 million has been found to have been miscalculated due to a software problem.”

That’s nearly 25% of a miscalculation, so it qualifies as a trainwreck. The fact that it affected people’s wallets doubly qualifies it, and that it happened in the vicinity of the Enron blast-crater seals the deal… this is an Information Quality Trainwreck.
Intrigued, I read further to see if the story identified what the nature of this software glitch was. Was it a poor choice of platform? Was it poorly written code or a failure to test? None of the above.

The ITCI tells us that the root cause of the problem was actually an incorrect stock price used in calculations. The software would appear to have done what it was supposed to do – or rather we can’t say that the software didn’t do what it was supposed to do. Garbage was put in, and garbage was returned out.

This resulted in “about 7,700” workers being overpaid. They’ll now have to pay back money to the pension fund that collapsed when Enron imploded. A further 12,800 are reported as having been underpaid.

This is an example of the real impacts of apparently minor information quality errors. This was also totally avoidable.As Information Quality trainwrecks go this is a good example. There are a number of levels at which sound IQ practices might not have been followed in this example. Readers are invited to comment with their thoughts on what might or might not have been appropriate here.

The article does not make any mention of the scrap and rework costs involved in identifying the overpaid and underpaid individuals or the personal trauma costs that could have resulted from people getting less money than they thought they were getting (the underpaid) or from people having to suddenly find the funds to repay their overpayments.

What’s in a name?

The Irish national broadcaster RTE has this story on their website this morning

The wrong prisoner was let out of one of Ireland’s main prisons yesterday because he had the same name as another prisoner who was due for release.  It seems that there were two Mark Kennys in the prison, one serving a short sentence for a minor offence, the other serving a longer sentence for a serious offence.

For the sake of clarity and a bad pun I’ll refer to the Kenny with the minor sentence as “Mark 1” and the other as (inevitably) “Mark 2”.

“Mark 1” had been granted temporary release. “Mark 2” was the prisoner released. Nobody noticed for 20 minutes. One can only assume that the error was identified by “Mark 1” enquiring when he was going to be let out.

This is a case of a process failure triggered by poor quality management of information which resulted in a serious criminal being released in error who will now have to be tracked down and re-arrested by police (the Gardaí as they are called in Ireland).

An investigation into how this came to happen has been ordered by the Director of the Irish Prison Service. Which is a bit like locking the stable door after the prisoner has bolted.

Whither the warranty? (or ebuyer beware).

The ever vigilant “The Register” carries a story today about on-line retail E-Buyer which appears to have muddled up the batch numbers on hard-drives they bought for resale and hard-drives that were for OEM (original equipment manufacturer)  installations. The full story can be found here, on el Reg.

The nub of the issue is that the warranty conditions for Seagate OEM drives are substantially different for drives purchased seperate to other equipment. EBuyer claimed a 5 year warranty for the drives, but customers who checked on Seagate’s validation site found that the warranty they had was only 1 year.

The information they had failed to meet the expectation of customers. One theory put forward in the story on The Register is that ebuyer mixed up their batches of OEM and consumer hard-drives, which apparently can happen if you are buying in bulk.  Other less honourable theories were also put forward…

It appears that ebuyer will have to carry the cost of honouring the 5 year warranty claimed for the drives sold.  This is the cost to them of non-quality in the information they used to manage their business which resulted in the wrong drives being sold under the wrong warranty.

 One wonders if ebuyer will review their processes for how they handle their inventory records to ensure that this type of error doesn’t happen again?

Another Amazon Trainwreck

This story appeared on The Register website last week. Our eagle eyed Information Quality Crash Investigators only spotted it today. To read the original story please follow this link .

This is not the first time that Amazon has appeared in an Information Quality trainwreck – pricing issues on their sites a few years ago resulted in TVs and IPaqs being listed for substantially below their market price (link and citation for this to follow).

##########Amazon pushes sex toys to random punters########

As we all know Amazon push ‘recommendations’ to customers via their website and via email based on past purchases and browsing. It would seem that a ‘technical error’ resulted in an email being sent out just before Easter that very definitely failed to “meet or exceed end customer expectations”.

Customers received an email advertising (ahem) sex toys which featured images and text that some recipients found offensive. In particular recipients found the email offensive as at least one of them (and probably a lot more) had never actually shopped for items like that on Amazon. Amazon.co.uk’s apology makes interesting reading:

Amazon.co.uk promotional mailings are based on previous purchases and should only go to customers who have previously purchased items from a particular store. We are aware, however, that a ‘Sex & Sensuality’ promotional mail was erroneously sent to a small number of customers who have never purchased anything from our ‘Sex and Sensuality’ store.
We sincerely apologise to any customer who has received this promotional mail in error and for any offence it may have caused. We trust that the customers in question will continue to use Amazon.co.uk for their online shopping needs.

Amazon’s recommendations are, it seems, based on data they hold about your browsing and buying patterns on their site. While it is an irritation when they recommend a book you only bought a few months ago it can be highly offensive and embarassing when they quite simply get it wrong with their information.

Have any readers had experience with Amazon either recommending things they have already bought from Amazon… or even worse things they would never in a month of Sundays buy?