12 ms·

It is also worth noting that Raj wasn't alone in the confusion on how to perform this task. Before he could complete the transfer his boss in India also had to

It is also worth noting that Raj wasn't alone in the confusion on how to perform this task. Before he could complete the transfer his boss in India also had to look at what Raj did. Then their boss in Deleware also approved the transaction. ALL THREE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS TASK WERE CONFUSED by the interface and all three thought that this was the correct way to do this. This wasn't the case of one person checked the wrong box. Everyone who looked at this was confused. This problem was not individual, but systemic.

TuringNYC 6y ago
Looking at the UI, anyone would be confused. I feel bad for the employee put into the spotlight. The spotlight should be on whomever designed and approved this software and UI. Unfortunately because of the court case, instead, people associated are the users.
crispyambulance 6y ago
Totally NOT SURPRISED that this was an awful Oracle enterprise app. These things were put together in haste in the 90's and Oracle keeps pushing them and their corporate customers keep these things going long past when the interface becomes utterly unfamiliar. The blame has to be shared, however, with the battle-axe personalities of the people that use this stuff. They would like nothing more than to retire while still using the _exact_ same applications and dated interfaces they've used for 20+ years. Literally, these are default "grey-theme" java applications, with all kinds of inconsistent UI quirks and absolutely no shits given for discoverability or even being able to create hyperlinks so that people can share stuff without screenshots. It's fine if it's the same people keep using these apps forever, but the problems start when new people get on-boarded. If it's like most places, the newbies will be given no training and the only help they will get would be from some dour in-house oracle-application jockey whose been doing the same thing for decades. That's when people make very, very expensive mistakes. We hear about this one because the sum was vast, but people make $10,000 mistakes on shit software from Oracle all the time-- that's partly why Oracle has a very deep bench of retained lawyers, I suppose. I have to say Citibank deserves it.
- kcb 6y ago
  It blows my mind that Oracle gets paid huge sums of money for the garbage they put out. I went to a CUNY school and they rolled out a "new" administration system called CUNYfirst. Literally a several $100 million dollar contract and Oracle provided a slightly modified version of Peoplesoft. The UI looks like something that should have never existed on this earth. Every student gets an Employee ID, you choose classes for a semester by adding then to a shopping cart and checking out. Minimal effort from them for maximum cost.
  - MisterTea 6y ago
    I went to QCC from 98-01 and you'd sit in the admin building on an IBM green screen terminal and setup your schedule. There was little to no prerequisite checking so I made all sorts of goofy schedules and took classes out of order. I don't remember having any issues with it as the interface was pretty strait forward. I wound up going back several years later when I was thinking of a different field and they had that trashcan CUNYfirst system. By then the UI was already outdated and clunky. I wound up with the wrong class the first time around because of some issue and have to have it changed post payment which was time consuming. I would have rather used the IBM's.
  - rubicon33 6y ago
    That’s aggressive sales department, make no mistake about it. It’s actually easy to sell shit software. The average person knows a lot more about cars, for example, thank they do software. I’m sure Oracle makes huge money on name alone. The IT manager doesn’t want to take a chance with some lesser name. Just get Oracle, then nobody can blame them when shit hits the fan.
    - MegaButts 6y ago
      > Just get Oracle, then nobody can blame them when shit hits the fan. Only incompetent people wouldn't blame the IT manager for choosing Oracle.
    - saas_sam 6y ago
      I would be more inclined to blame the buyer, not the seller.
josephorjoe 6y ago
That UI is depressingly awful, and not having a confirmation screen with a summary of the transaction about to be initiated is so very very bad that it should get people fired. Pretty much every modern financial app I've used has one of those confirmations - some better than others but all pretty clearly state "you are going to transfer $XXXX.XX to ACCOUNT_YYYY -- click here to approve transfer". Even venmo's quick prompt to make sure you really mean to send your pet sitter $125.00 before initiating a transfer would have avoided this problem.
- gambiting 6y ago
  The thing is, this is where the difference is between internal and external tools. Your client facing app has to confirm every action because the client isn't expected to have a deep understanding of the process. Bank employees are expected to have that understanding, so I'm not surprised there is no confirmation window. It's like with Linux - certain completely destructive commands have no confirmation before running, because clearly the user knows what they are doing - otherwise why did they type in that command in the first place.
  - josephorjoe 6y ago
    Since firing an employee won't bring the $500,000,000 back, I'm thinking the linux philosophy is probably not the best one to use here. The linux approach is "what you are doing is not my problem, so go do whatever you want". For a bank, what their employees do is very much their problem.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > Bank employees are expected to have that understanding, so I'm not surprised there is no confirmation window. It's like with Linux - certain completely destructive commands have no confirmation before running, because clearly the user knows what they are doing Well, no, it's not like that at all. There IS a confirmation window; it's just not embedded in the software. Three different people -- the flunky, his boss, and his boss's boss -- were all required to confirm the validity of the transaction before making it.
hinkley 6y ago
These 'double checking' things are like a worst case scenario of code reviews. There's a psychological defect in the human brain called Anchoring. If you are first presented with the wrong answer to a problem, it affects your ability to objectively come up with the 'right' answer. You will not catch all of the garbage I threw at you because I threw it. "Double" checking is a misnomer because it's not really doubling the number of brains. Some things should work more like nuclear launch codes. I don't approve your action, I perform the exact same action, and if we both did exactly the same thing, then something happens. If we don't, then nothing happens or you get an error. Might this problem still have happened? Yes. But the first time it happened would probably have been taken more seriously, instead of what we usually do: deflect, deflect, deflect.
- diplomatpuppy 6y ago
  The local hospital handles the problem like this: Doctor 1 gathers evidence and makes a preliminary diagnosis and writes it down. Doctor 1 then presents only the evidence to Doctor 2. Doctor 2 comes up with an independent diagnosis and writes it down. They then see if they match.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    Bleeding person with white coat syndrome gets upset because two doctors and a nurse asked them the same questions. I mean, it's better than cutting off the wrong leg, but boy is it rough.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Selecting which evidence to present leaves this process subject to some of the same errors. The evidence that leads doctor 1 to conclude the correct diagnosis is X is going to be passed along and other evidence may not be, so doctor 2 will diagnose the same. (This doesn't even have to be intentional. If I think I'm right, I'll be naturally inclined to provide evidence to that effect.)
unsignedchar 6y ago
Would be interesting if Citibank could sue Oracle for the confusing design
- IncRnd 6y ago
  I'd think they could, but that would bring up the question of how many transactions Citibank had properly run through the software. I doubt Citi would want to pursue that sort of a suit, since it would lkely highlight they were at fault. Sure the software is probably difficult to use, but if they already knew how to use it, then using it incorrectly is not the fault of the UI.
parineum 6y ago
>ALL THREE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS TASK WERE CONFUSED I know you didn't mean it this literally but the issue is worse than that. They weren't confused. If they were confused, they would have sought clarification. Instead, they were sure they were doing the right thing.
IncRnd 6y ago
I did a quick google search and looked at the Oracle documentation for Flexcube. While I'm not 100% sure it is for the same version of software, the documentation appears to discuss this point. Overwrite default settlement instruction Select the ‘Overwrite default settlement instruction’ check box to confirm that the liquidation entries should be posted into the Internal GL account. System posts the entries to the Internal GLs only if you check this check box. Otherwise, system posts the entries as per the settlement instructions specified for the component of the contract. It seems to me that the docs say when the user doesn't check the overwrite default settlement instruction checkboxes, the software will xfer the money according to the settlement instructions. Either way, for approving almost $900,000,000 I'd take a second look before clicking the approval button on a subcontractor's work. Heck, I'd even check when approving this transaction for the VP down the hall.

TuringNYC 6y ago

Looking at the UI, anyone would be confused. I feel bad for the employee put into the spotlight. The spotlight should be on whomever designed and approved this software and UI. Unfortunately because of the court case, instead, people associated are the users.

crispyambulance 6y ago

Totally NOT SURPRISED that this was an awful Oracle enterprise app. These things were put together in haste in the 90's and Oracle keeps pushing them and their corporate customers keep these things going long past when the interface becomes utterly unfamiliar. The blame has to be shared, however, with the battle-axe personalities of the people that use this stuff. They would like nothing more than to retire while still using the _exact_ same applications and dated interfaces they've used for 20+ years. Literally, these are default "grey-theme" java applications, with all kinds of inconsistent UI quirks and absolutely no shits given for discoverability or even being able to create hyperlinks so that people can share stuff without screenshots. It's fine if it's the same people keep using these apps forever, but the problems start when new people get on-boarded. If it's like most places, the newbies will be given no training and the only help they will get would be from some dour in-house oracle-application jockey whose been doing the same thing for decades. That's when people make very, very expensive mistakes. We hear about this one because the sum was vast, but people make $10,000 mistakes on shit software from Oracle all the time-- that's partly why Oracle has a very deep bench of retained lawyers, I suppose. I have to say Citibank deserves it.

kcb 6y ago
It blows my mind that Oracle gets paid huge sums of money for the garbage they put out. I went to a CUNY school and they rolled out a "new" administration system called CUNYfirst. Literally a several $100 million dollar contract and Oracle provided a slightly modified version of Peoplesoft. The UI looks like something that should have never existed on this earth. Every student gets an Employee ID, you choose classes for a semester by adding then to a shopping cart and checking out. Minimal effort from them for maximum cost.
- MisterTea 6y ago
  I went to QCC from 98-01 and you'd sit in the admin building on an IBM green screen terminal and setup your schedule. There was little to no prerequisite checking so I made all sorts of goofy schedules and took classes out of order. I don't remember having any issues with it as the interface was pretty strait forward. I wound up going back several years later when I was thinking of a different field and they had that trashcan CUNYfirst system. By then the UI was already outdated and clunky. I wound up with the wrong class the first time around because of some issue and have to have it changed post payment which was time consuming. I would have rather used the IBM's.
- rubicon33 6y ago
  That’s aggressive sales department, make no mistake about it. It’s actually easy to sell shit software. The average person knows a lot more about cars, for example, thank they do software. I’m sure Oracle makes huge money on name alone. The IT manager doesn’t want to take a chance with some lesser name. Just get Oracle, then nobody can blame them when shit hits the fan.
  - MegaButts 6y ago
    > Just get Oracle, then nobody can blame them when shit hits the fan. Only incompetent people wouldn't blame the IT manager for choosing Oracle.
  - saas_sam 6y ago
    I would be more inclined to blame the buyer, not the seller.

josephorjoe 6y ago

That UI is depressingly awful, and not having a confirmation screen with a summary of the transaction about to be initiated is so very very bad that it should get people fired. Pretty much every modern financial app I've used has one of those confirmations - some better than others but all pretty clearly state "you are going to transfer $XXXX.XX to ACCOUNT_YYYY -- click here to approve transfer". Even venmo's quick prompt to make sure you really mean to send your pet sitter $125.00 before initiating a transfer would have avoided this problem.

gambiting 6y ago
The thing is, this is where the difference is between internal and external tools. Your client facing app has to confirm every action because the client isn't expected to have a deep understanding of the process. Bank employees are expected to have that understanding, so I'm not surprised there is no confirmation window. It's like with Linux - certain completely destructive commands have no confirmation before running, because clearly the user knows what they are doing - otherwise why did they type in that command in the first place.
- josephorjoe 6y ago
  Since firing an employee won't bring the $500,000,000 back, I'm thinking the linux philosophy is probably not the best one to use here. The linux approach is "what you are doing is not my problem, so go do whatever you want". For a bank, what their employees do is very much their problem.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > Bank employees are expected to have that understanding, so I'm not surprised there is no confirmation window. It's like with Linux - certain completely destructive commands have no confirmation before running, because clearly the user knows what they are doing Well, no, it's not like that at all. There IS a confirmation window; it's just not embedded in the software. Three different people -- the flunky, his boss, and his boss's boss -- were all required to confirm the validity of the transaction before making it.

hinkley 6y ago

These 'double checking' things are like a worst case scenario of code reviews. There's a psychological defect in the human brain called Anchoring. If you are first presented with the wrong answer to a problem, it affects your ability to objectively come up with the 'right' answer. You will not catch all of the garbage I threw at you because I threw it. "Double" checking is a misnomer because it's not really doubling the number of brains. Some things should work more like nuclear launch codes. I don't approve your action, I perform the exact same action, and if we both did exactly the same thing, then something happens. If we don't, then nothing happens or you get an error. Might this problem still have happened? Yes. But the first time it happened would probably have been taken more seriously, instead of what we usually do: deflect, deflect, deflect.

diplomatpuppy 6y ago
The local hospital handles the problem like this: Doctor 1 gathers evidence and makes a preliminary diagnosis and writes it down. Doctor 1 then presents only the evidence to Doctor 2. Doctor 2 comes up with an independent diagnosis and writes it down. They then see if they match.
- hinkley 6y ago
  Bleeding person with white coat syndrome gets upset because two doctors and a nurse asked them the same questions. I mean, it's better than cutting off the wrong leg, but boy is it rough.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Selecting which evidence to present leaves this process subject to some of the same errors. The evidence that leads doctor 1 to conclude the correct diagnosis is X is going to be passed along and other evidence may not be, so doctor 2 will diagnose the same. (This doesn't even have to be intentional. If I think I'm right, I'll be naturally inclined to provide evidence to that effect.)

unsignedchar 6y ago

Would be interesting if Citibank could sue Oracle for the confusing design

IncRnd 6y ago
I'd think they could, but that would bring up the question of how many transactions Citibank had properly run through the software. I doubt Citi would want to pursue that sort of a suit, since it would lkely highlight they were at fault. Sure the software is probably difficult to use, but if they already knew how to use it, then using it incorrectly is not the fault of the UI.

parineum 6y ago

>ALL THREE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS TASK WERE CONFUSED I know you didn't mean it this literally but the issue is worse than that. They weren't confused. If they were confused, they would have sought clarification. Instead, they were sure they were doing the right thing.

IncRnd 6y ago

I did a quick google search and looked at the Oracle documentation for Flexcube. While I'm not 100% sure it is for the same version of software, the documentation appears to discuss this point. Overwrite default settlement instruction Select the ‘Overwrite default settlement instruction’ check box to confirm that the liquidation entries should be posted into the Internal GL account. System posts the entries to the Internal GLs only if you check this check box. Otherwise, system posts the entries as per the settlement instructions specified for the component of the contract. It seems to me that the docs say when the user doesn't check the overwrite default settlement instruction checkboxes, the software will xfer the money according to the settlement instructions. Either way, for approving almost $900,000,000 I'd take a second look before clicking the approval button on a subcontractor's work. Heck, I'd even check when approving this transaction for the VP down the hall.