Exam agency computer 'blows up'

By Stuart Millar
technology correspondent

The agency at the centre of last summer's Scottish exams fiasco has suffered yet another humiliating setback: the loss of a new £400,000 computer system, which was destroyed after being plugged into the wrong electricity supply.

The Scottish qualifications authority's powerful IBM Numa-Q computer "went up in smoke", according to insiders, when a contractor wired it directly into a high voltage three stage mains electricity supply instead of a normal 240 volt circuit.

The simple but catastrophic error - akin to getting the wires the wrong way round in a household plug - caused a surge of power that "fried" the computer's sophisticated electronics.

Details of the incident a fortnight ago, revealed today in Computer Weekly, come amid concern that pupils are facing a repeat of last year's crisis, when more than 18,000 teenages received incomplete or inaccurate higher still and standard grade results.

A scathing report into the affair from management consultants Deloitte and Touche concluded a series of management failings was to blame. Among the weaknesses it highlighted were the late in stallation of computer systems, loss of data and operational failings that made problems almost inevitable.

A day after being confirmed as the new Labour leader in Scotland last December, the first minister, Henry McLeish, vowed the problems of 2000 would "never happen again".

But in March, less than two months before pupils were due to sit their exams, it emerged that the authority had missed a deadline for sending information to schools, was behind in processing exam papers and was short of 2,000 experienced markers despite recruiting early on improved pay.

Tests on the computer system found a higher error rate than last year, prompting ministers to put the date for issuing results back by a week to August 15.

But a spokesman for the authority last night said the latest incident would have no effect on the results process. He said the computer was one of two back-up machines.

The contractor responsible was not employed by either the authority or IBM.

It is understood the authority does not intend to take action against the contractor.

Sourced from: The Guardian