1. Who was ultimately responsible for the situation that occurred at Corona Corporation? 2. Was it reasonable for Electra's project manager to identify and implement a backup solution without considering the scenario that occurred? 3. What actions should have been taken to prevent this from happening? By whom? 4. What effects do situations such as this one have on the way customer organizations approach project 5. What should be some of the primary lessons learned by Electra Consulting?

Practical Management Science
6th Edition
ISBN:9781337406659
Author:WINSTON, Wayne L.
Publisher:WINSTON, Wayne L.
Chapter2: Introduction To Spreadsheet Modeling
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 20P: Julie James is opening a lemonade stand. She believes the fixed cost per week of running the stand...
icon
Related questions
icon
Concept explainers
Question

Answer the questions in one paragraph each

Mastering Scope and Requirements Management
Case Study I
Corona Corporation
In October, 2003, Corona Corporation, a multi-billion dollar services organization, initiated a project to
streamline their backup procedures in their primary data center located in Los Angeles, California. The
focus of this project was a mission-critical database that existed on a server array. This database was just
over 2 terabytes in size and was used enterprise-wide by employees and customers. It was estimated that
downtime for the systems that used this database would be measured at an impact of $8,000 per hour to
Corona Corporation.
The current time for a weekly baseline backup of this database was measured at 20 hours, and the backup
procedures were placing a heavy performance strain on the systems that accessed the database while the
backup was taking place. Corona Corporation retained Electra Consulting, a leader in the disaster recovery
business located in the northeastern United States, to help them improve the backup performance.
The service order that Corona issued stated that the primary indicator of success for the replacement
solution would be the reduction in the time that it took to backup the database. The goals were to cut the
backup time in half and to schedule the weekly baseline backup for off-peak evening and night hours so
that the performance of production systems would not be substantially impacted.
During the analysis, consultants from Electra identified a key technological component that was primarily
responsible for the bottleneck. On the team's recommendation, the project manager selected a replacement
technology that allowed more data to travel in parallel and at higher speeds, providing for a faster backup
without compromising accuracy or data integrity. New hardware and software components were procured
and installed to further streamline the backup process.
The solution was deployed into production in January, 2004, and measurements indicated that the backup
time was reduced to less than 4 hours, winning the project and Electra Consulting much acclaim. Another
benefit of the solution was that the data could be restored selectively or in its entirety. The project was
completed and closed out in March, 2004.
On July 12th, 2004, at 12:35 a.m., Corona Corporation suffered a catastrophic hardware failure of their
disk controller, resulting in data corruption and loss across the entire drive array. The business continuance
team was deployed and determined that replacement hardware was required and a full system restore
would be necessary. By 4:00 a.m., the team was implementing the disaster recovery plan that Electra
Consulting had created. An identical drive array was installed, and the data restore was begun, with an initial
projected restoration time of 8:30 a.m. on the same day.
As the restore was initiated, however, it was discovered that the full backup that Electra Consulting had
implemented was in fact only backing up the 2 terabyte database. The previous legacy backup, which had
taken 20 hours, was backing up not only the data but the entire volume, allowing for a complete system
restore. The Electra Consulting solution, however, only backed up the data.
Using Electra's solution, the volumes were prepared and formatted and then reloaded with the operating
system. The system was then configured and patched, the proper accounts and security were created, the
database application was reloaded and configured, and the 2-terabyte database was restored. The systems
which relied upon the database were down in excess of 60 hours, costing Corona over $500,000 in lost
opportunity and customer impact.
After this incident, Electra Consulting's project manager was called back to Corona Corporation for a
meeting. In the meeting, Corona's business continuance manager stated that she believed Corona had been
misled by Electra. The project manager from Electra adamantly stood by the fact that the service order,
written by Corona, asked for precisely what had been delivered and that he had substantially beaten the key
Page 1
Mastering Scope and Requirements Management
performance indicators. Corona Corporation asserted that because Electra's solution was a replacement
solution, Electra should have made a greater effort to understand what was in existence before attempting
to put another solution in place.
Transcribed Image Text:Mastering Scope and Requirements Management Case Study I Corona Corporation In October, 2003, Corona Corporation, a multi-billion dollar services organization, initiated a project to streamline their backup procedures in their primary data center located in Los Angeles, California. The focus of this project was a mission-critical database that existed on a server array. This database was just over 2 terabytes in size and was used enterprise-wide by employees and customers. It was estimated that downtime for the systems that used this database would be measured at an impact of $8,000 per hour to Corona Corporation. The current time for a weekly baseline backup of this database was measured at 20 hours, and the backup procedures were placing a heavy performance strain on the systems that accessed the database while the backup was taking place. Corona Corporation retained Electra Consulting, a leader in the disaster recovery business located in the northeastern United States, to help them improve the backup performance. The service order that Corona issued stated that the primary indicator of success for the replacement solution would be the reduction in the time that it took to backup the database. The goals were to cut the backup time in half and to schedule the weekly baseline backup for off-peak evening and night hours so that the performance of production systems would not be substantially impacted. During the analysis, consultants from Electra identified a key technological component that was primarily responsible for the bottleneck. On the team's recommendation, the project manager selected a replacement technology that allowed more data to travel in parallel and at higher speeds, providing for a faster backup without compromising accuracy or data integrity. New hardware and software components were procured and installed to further streamline the backup process. The solution was deployed into production in January, 2004, and measurements indicated that the backup time was reduced to less than 4 hours, winning the project and Electra Consulting much acclaim. Another benefit of the solution was that the data could be restored selectively or in its entirety. The project was completed and closed out in March, 2004. On July 12th, 2004, at 12:35 a.m., Corona Corporation suffered a catastrophic hardware failure of their disk controller, resulting in data corruption and loss across the entire drive array. The business continuance team was deployed and determined that replacement hardware was required and a full system restore would be necessary. By 4:00 a.m., the team was implementing the disaster recovery plan that Electra Consulting had created. An identical drive array was installed, and the data restore was begun, with an initial projected restoration time of 8:30 a.m. on the same day. As the restore was initiated, however, it was discovered that the full backup that Electra Consulting had implemented was in fact only backing up the 2 terabyte database. The previous legacy backup, which had taken 20 hours, was backing up not only the data but the entire volume, allowing for a complete system restore. The Electra Consulting solution, however, only backed up the data. Using Electra's solution, the volumes were prepared and formatted and then reloaded with the operating system. The system was then configured and patched, the proper accounts and security were created, the database application was reloaded and configured, and the 2-terabyte database was restored. The systems which relied upon the database were down in excess of 60 hours, costing Corona over $500,000 in lost opportunity and customer impact. After this incident, Electra Consulting's project manager was called back to Corona Corporation for a meeting. In the meeting, Corona's business continuance manager stated that she believed Corona had been misled by Electra. The project manager from Electra adamantly stood by the fact that the service order, written by Corona, asked for precisely what had been delivered and that he had substantially beaten the key Page 1 Mastering Scope and Requirements Management performance indicators. Corona Corporation asserted that because Electra's solution was a replacement solution, Electra should have made a greater effort to understand what was in existence before attempting to put another solution in place.
Case Study I Questions
Corona Corporation:
1. Who was ultimately responsible for the situation that occurred at Corona Corporation?
2. Was it reasonable for Electra's project manager to identify and implement a backup solution without
considering the scenario that occurred?
3. What actions should have been taken to prevent this from happening? By whom?
4. What effects do situations such as this one have on the way customer organizations approach projects?
5. What should be some of the primary lessons learned by Electra Consulting?
Transcribed Image Text:Case Study I Questions Corona Corporation: 1. Who was ultimately responsible for the situation that occurred at Corona Corporation? 2. Was it reasonable for Electra's project manager to identify and implement a backup solution without considering the scenario that occurred? 3. What actions should have been taken to prevent this from happening? By whom? 4. What effects do situations such as this one have on the way customer organizations approach projects? 5. What should be some of the primary lessons learned by Electra Consulting?
Expert Solution
steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps

Blurred answer
Knowledge Booster
Recruitment
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, operations-management and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.
Similar questions
Recommended textbooks for you
Practical Management Science
Practical Management Science
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781337406659
Author:
WINSTON, Wayne L.
Publisher:
Cengage,
Operations Management
Operations Management
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259667473
Author:
William J Stevenson
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Operations and Supply Chain Management (Mcgraw-hi…
Operations and Supply Chain Management (Mcgraw-hi…
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259666100
Author:
F. Robert Jacobs, Richard B Chase
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Business in Action
Business in Action
Operations Management
ISBN:
9780135198100
Author:
BOVEE
Publisher:
PEARSON CO
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781285869681
Author:
Robert M. Monczka, Robert B. Handfield, Larry C. Giunipero, James L. Patterson
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Production and Operations Analysis, Seventh Editi…
Production and Operations Analysis, Seventh Editi…
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781478623069
Author:
Steven Nahmias, Tava Lennon Olsen
Publisher:
Waveland Press, Inc.