SA Airlink Case

Unfortunately missed the discussion around this due to my absense, but here are some of my views...

An aircraft is a highly sophisticated machine with a host of different technologies that complete it. However overall i think that the aircraft is the technology in this case. I am leaning toward the thought that this case presents somewhat of an abuse of technology. Abuse in the sense that the warning signs of the requirement for maintenance must surely have been there given the sophistication of the technology used to monitor an aircraft and it components, but somehow the maintenance was neglected.

The case presents a good example of how technology on its own cannot be effective. Processes and the interaction of people with the technology is a vital part of any technologies success of failure. The aircraft in the case failed on both a obejctive and subjective view because processes that were meant to be followed in termsof the maintenance were not followed.

Another issue that this case raises is how often it is that we wait for technology to break before we fix it. The famous saying that "If it aint broke, why fix it?" what we forget is the impact of the breaking of that piece of technology. Again this leads to my question of whether business people fully understand the impact of technology in their businesses and lives. Perhaps the question is extended beyond just non-technical business people, because the airlink case presents an example when surely even technical people were aware of the need for maintenance on the aircraft but yet it was neglected and the effects of the technology failing were not seriously considered.

Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) in their paper "...Desperately seeking the "IT" in IT research..." put it well when they mention "The IT artifact tends to disappear from view, be taken for granted, or is presumed to be unproblematic once it is built and installed." How true this is...