Jetstar: How to run IT with 5 staff

[Flashback]

Jetstar: How to run IT with five staff - Training & Development - Business - News - iTnews.com.au

Who needs in-house skills when you’ve got the cloud?

Jetstar CIO Stephen Tame sees his suppliers as he sees his investment stocks - a balancedspread of risk, with some paying bigger dividends than others.
Tame revealed today that the budget airline operates with just five full-time IT staff, focused almost exclusively on managing a number of outsourcing partners including IBM (check-in/kiosk), Sonnet (desktops), Zensar (Operations app development and BPO), Telstra (telecommunications), iGate (Engineering app development) and CapGemini (Data Warehouse).

 

[Homer]

I've had to call their contact centre on one occasion and it seemed to me as though they had about 5 staff in there as well...

 

[simongr]

This is a real proposition - why bother with building internal servers/networks that need to be maintained and licensed to MS (often) - why not just get everyone onto google apps to replace the MS office/Outlook suite and get everyone an internet connection only - via a fairly simple dumb terminal. Even inhouse apps can be hosted in the cloud.

The IT world is continuing to evolve and with some forward and innovative thinking the IT experience for users and providers could be cheaper, more secure and more enjoyable.

 

[serfty]

The only trouble with cloud computing is what happens when the wires are cut ...

 

[ChrisBNE]

We use the JQ website continually each day, and it can be incredibly furstrating how poorly it performs-especially in comparison to DJ's. Not sure if this is related to OP, but quite frankly the JQ booking engine is **** and super buggy.

 

[simongr]

The only trouble with cloud computing is what happens when the wires are cut ...

The same thing that happens when the wires are cut between yourCo and the outside world normally. We no longer live in isolation on our networks.

I also (and this where I get into trouble with corporate IT depts) don't believe that because it is in-house it is better or more secure. External providers have more resources to make systems more reliable, secure and efficient.

 

[JohnK]

Interesting concept used by Jetstar.

It is quite clear now why their website is one of the worst airline websites I have encountered.

 

[samh004]

"My five staff simply ensure services are delivered."

But they don't! The website has failed to book flights several times for me, and now I know why, cost cutting. And he has the balls to brag about a system that actually doesn't work when there's a sale... So about once a week!!

 

[markis10]

The same thing that happens when the wires are cut between yourCo and the outside world normally. We no longer live in isolation on our networks.

I also (and this where I get into trouble with corporate IT depts) don't believe that because it is in-house it is better or more secure. External providers have more resources to make systems more reliable, secure and efficient.

The number of outsourced/external service providers that have been hacked and customer details leaked /sold is frightening, there is no reason why external providers should have any more resources than internal ones if financed correctly, in fact internal departments are often better resourced in terms of value because there is no margin component eroding the budgeted funds once they hit a certain size, as the economies of scale are eroded. The demise of EDS and others is an indication that for the big end of town, in house makes sense in todays world once you get beyond a certain size.

You may also be surprised how many data warehouse operations or outsourced companies do not meet PCI-DSS standards, simply because there is no naming and shaming in Australia like there is overseas when leaks occur. I was interested to read your recommendation with regard Google Apps, Google has had significant past issues with PCI compliance but have improved. Many of the cloud server providers will not meet PCI level 1 requirements, including Amazon EC2, because they do not permit third party audits of their datacentres. That only affects companies with more than 6 million transactions a year, but you have to wonder why?

 

[NM]

This is a real proposition - why bother with building internal servers/networks that need to be maintained and licensed to MS (often) - why not just get everyone onto google apps to replace the MS office/Outlook suite and get everyone an internet connection only - via a fairly simple dumb terminal. Even inhouse apps can be hosted in the cloud.

The IT world is continuing to evolve and with some forward and innovative thinking the IT experience for users and providers could be cheaper, more secure and more enjoyable.

Its called Service Levels Agreements. Using the internet as your network provider makes its very difficult to obtain an meaningful or enforceable service level agreement.

Then again, some may argue that some companies do not require SLAs to meet their customer service objectives :shock:

 

[NM]

The only trouble with cloud computing is what happens when the wires are cut ...

Or when it rains . Alternate paths to/from/within the cloud can be established, but when it all gets damp things get interesting.

 

[UP4014]

5 people administering contracts = one of the worst airline websites.

I guess not much of a surprise there.

 

[ethernet]

Should read How to run IT with 5 staff and a big pile of money for others to do it for you. There are no metrics - with DVA as the benchmark for cost control excellence.

People should say 'what is the total cost'? Then add in a number for lost flexibility, and the money lost for not being agile, and lock-in. With outsourcing, quality takes a dive, and reducing costs is impossible. As for fixed cost - that is rarely the case.

The big pile of money covers the 'running'. In JQ's case I have seen few changes, so their 'partners' are probably not making much (Outsourcing is only good if the client changes their minds, and the vendor overcharges here and there on fat projects).

Clouds are not going to make much of an impact for mission critical applications, not unless they can be audited, and the big players have all said no. So we have lots of 'clouds' spring up because it is buzzword of the year (last year was SMART anything)

Given that JQ does not 'scale up' for the peaks, it seems they are paying dearly for whatever they signed up for - and intend to sit tight until the next re-negotiation.