Airport’s currently capacity is 15 000 Passengers a day. There are 150 full time employees along with 128 part time employees.
IT system components of Airport Datacenter
– Database for Passengers
– Database for airlines / flights
– Database for Employees
– Processing / Computing: Preparing Passengers invoices, boarding passes
– Long term data storage to fulfill the regulations the airport must maintain (keep) the passenger and flight data for five years.
QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1. There is an increased risk of accident where a huge cargo Aircraft might go out of control and damage Airport’s Datacenter. What can you do to reduce impact of this threat so Airport continues to operate?
QUESTION 2 There is an increased risk of power blackouts at the Airport’s Datacenter due to heavy storm in the region. What can you do to reduce impact of this threat so Airport continues to operate?
Consider this new case while answering the question 3,4,5 and 6.
Airport is growing fast and it is going to reach 30 000 Passengers a day. It looks like current data center would not be able to handle the influx of new passengers and new airlines. And, this is happing fast, there is no time to physically expand the Airport Datacenter.
QUESTION 3: Which components of the Airport’s Datacenter you would move the cloud to meet the demand? And which components of the Airport’s Datacenter you would keep in the datacenter of the airport. Explain your rationale (give the justification for the choice you make)
QUESTION 4: Before moving the IT components to cloud that you have mentioned in question 3; What would be System Requirements that you look for the cloud service provider?
QUESTION 5: Assuming that; you decided to shift a great deal of day-to-day management the cloud-solution provider (agreement with the cloud service provider company). As an IT manager what you would do to monitor system performance for the Airport’s Datacenter?
QUESTION 6: How you would address following three Security issues related to long term operation of Airport’s Datacenter in partnership with the cloud service provider?
Unauthorized disclosure of passengers’ data
Unauthorized alternation and modification of airlines’ flight data
Destruction of stored/ archived passengers’ data
Sample Solution
Sample Solution
This paper presents an example of how economists can take the behavioural models of the social sciences (namely cognitive dissonance) and incorporate them into their own assumptions of behaviour (that agents are rational actors).
There are three basic premises of economic cognitive dissonance: confirmation biases, personal belief distortion and the persistence of chosen beliefs (despite their veracity). To confirm these premises, the authors illustrate a number of examples in the workplace which highlight the inherent flaws which are present in day-to-day cognition. For example, workers will believe in the safety of their workplace despite present dangers, to ease anxiety and caution; running the risk of injury should their judgements fail. In this example, the authors still maintain that the workers are rational; but only to the extent that their belief structure is the result of a subconscious cost-benefit analysis.
Social psychology, which is based upon the theory of cognitive consistency, offers psychological evidence of cognitive dissonance. Agents self-identify themselves as ‘smart’ and ‘nice’, and any information that conflicts with this identification is ignored, rejected or supplemented for another belief that fits within this self-identity. Agents rarely recognise these errors, as recognition itself would again be in conflict with the agent’s ego. Bayesian decision theory is offered as a critique of this theory, however the authors look to the results of psychological experiments analysing cognitive dissonance to discount this critique; arguing that the evidence supports the notion that it is in fact personal beliefs that affect decisions, more than available information.
With these findings in mind, the authors have constructed a decision model which modifies the traditional model of rational decision making and demonstrates the resultant opportunities and consequences. This paper approached the economics of ‘irrational behaviour’ from a different perspective as that of Gary Becker, who holds that irrational behaviour is a random and spontaneous deviation from economic rationality.
This article, when positioned amongst broader literature, establishes a clear model and provides practical outcomes. The model is robust and well thought out, allowing for an easy understanding of the relevant concepts. However, where this article falls short, is the confidence with which they present this model. In my personal opinion, matters of economic rationality are far too com
