Court dismisses firm's claims against design engineers over failure in power supply system

Over the past decade, I have had my fair share of con men masquerading as consultants providing dodgy advice, and I have been very vocal about the times I was let down

But in recent years, my views have become more nuanced. Businesses have to contend with conflicting priorities, just as consultants (and by the same extension other lines of businesses and functions that we outsource) need to do the same. And this has to do less with technical analysis and more with technology risk and communicating these risks to stakeholders

Many of us may remember the spate of power disruptions that occurred a few years ago involving DRUPS (this includes Sovereign House in London, and the Singapore Stock Exchange). In the case of the Singapore Stock Exchange, the Board of Inquiry observed that the Singapore Stock Exchange did not have the commensurate expertise to design, construct and operate data centres, and should engage independent professional third parties to validate vendors' recommendations, designs and plans

That begs the question of what happens after a customer outsources the design oversight to an external party. Should we expect the customer or owners to understand what voltage sags are, and how synchronization problems occur?

I am not naive enough to think outsourcing is solely for leveraging on the strengths of subject matter experts. It is about bang for buck (often equivalent to sourcing for the lowest cost that fits the minimum requirements), and sometimes it is also about spreading the accountability and culpability

Businesses exist to make a profit, and strive to do so for the long run. You do not run a profitable and sustainable business by over-sizing capacity. But you also do not run a credible business by ignoring the core commitment to its customers to provide reliable services

So what could have gone wrong in the above? I think, and I am prepared to concede I am wrong, is that of discerning where is the sweet spot where you can have it all, where you decide how much capacity buffer is enough to get the job done and some, but not squandering precious resources on wild needs. This is true even for renovations of residential houses, where electricians need to make a judgement call on the electrical diversity between the power supplied and the number and rating of the downstream power sockets per circuit

This carries not just technology risk but also reputational risk. And hence, it is not just for the consultants, but also a matter that needs to involve the board which serves to weigh the pros and cons of each decision in terms of what serves the short term and long term interests of the business

Interestingly a recent article alluded to the need for technology companies to be regulated.

And the above puts some perspective to working with outsourced parties (only because we have to) but at the same time having the need to keep them on their toes. This also means retaining enough business and technical knowledge in-house to be able to ask tough questions and to be able to tell when your outsourced parties are not being totally honest (this is a subject for a later day)

On the flip side, I do think that the relationship between operators and consultants are skewed in favor of the operators. Ultimately, consultants also need to hedge their bets, while winning and keeping jobs to stay afloat. This could sometimes entail giving in to operators' demands, as shown below in another court case between an engineering consultancy and its client

There are clearly very complex issues at play and I do not think there are simple answers to the potential questions. But I will suggest that there is a need for more open communication between not just consultants and operators, but for the operators in turn to have more open communication among its internal divisions and possibly even the board, and perhaps for the same to take place between operators and the clients who then depend on the operators