Answer the questions in one paragraph each Mastering Scope and Requirements ManagementCase Study ICorona CorporationIn October, 2003, Corona Corporation, a multi-billion dollar services organization, initiated a project tostreamline their backup procedures in their primary data center located in Los Angeles, California. Thefocus of this project was a mission-critical database that existed on a server array. This database was justover 2 terabytes in size and was used enterprise-wide by employees and customers. It was estimated thatdowntime for the systems that used this database would be measured at an impact of $8,000 per hour toCorona Corporation.The current time for a weekly baseline backup of this database was measured at 20 hours, and the backupprocedures were placing a heavy performance strain on the systems that accessed the database while thebackup was taking place. Corona Corporation retained Electra Consulting, a leader in the disaster recoverybusiness located in the northeastern United States, to help them improve the backup performance.The service order that Corona issued stated that the primary indicator of success for the replacementsolution would be the reduction in the time that it took to backup the database. The goals were to cut thebackup time in half and to schedule the weekly baseline backup for off-peak evening and night hours sothat the performance of production systems would not be substantially impacted.During the analysis, consultants from Electra identified a key technological component that was primarilyresponsible for the bottleneck. On the team's recommendation, the project manager selected a replacementtechnology that allowed more data to travel in parallel and at higher speeds, providing for a faster backupwithout compromising accuracy or data integrity. New hardware and software components were procuredand installed to further streamline the backup process.The solution was deployed into production in January, 2004, and measurements indicated that the backuptime was reduced to less than 4 hours, winning the project and Electra Consulting much acclaim. Anotherbenefit of the solution was that the data could be restored selectively or in its entirety. The project wascompleted and closed out in March, 2004.On July 12th, 2004, at 12:35 a.m., Corona Corporation suffered a catastrophic hardware failure of theirdisk controller, resulting in data corruption and loss across the entire drive array. The business continuanceteam was deployed and determined that replacement hardware was required and a full system restorewould be necessary. By 4:00 a.m., the team was implementing the disaster recovery plan that ElectraConsulting had created. An identical drive array was installed, and the data restore was begun, with an initialprojected restoration time of 8:30 a.m. on the same day.As the restore was initiated, however, it was discovered that the full backup that Electra Consulting hadimplemented was in fact only backing up the 2 terabyte database. The previous legacy backup, which hadtaken 20 hours, was backing up not only the data but the entire volume, allowing for a complete systemrestore. The Electra Consulting solution, however, only backed up the data.Using Electra's solution, the volumes were prepared and formatted and then reloaded with the operatingsystem. The system was then configured and patched, the proper accounts and security were created, thedatabase application was reloaded and configured, and the 2-terabyte database was restored. The systemswhich relied upon the database were down in excess of 60 hours, costing Corona over $500,000 in lostopportunity and customer impact.After this incident, Electra Consulting's project manager was called back to Corona Corporation for ameeting. In the meeting, Corona's business continuance manager stated that she believed Corona had beenmisled by Electra. The project manager from Electra adamantly stood by the fact that the service order,written by Corona, asked for precisely what had been delivered and that he had substantially beaten the keyPage 1Mastering Scope and Requirements Managementperformance indicators. Corona Corporation asserted that because Electra's solution was a replacementsolution, Electra should have made a greater effort to understand what was in existence before attemptingto put another solution in place. Case Study I QuestionsCorona Corporation:1. Who was ultimately responsible for the situation that occurred at Corona Corporation?2. Was it reasonable for Electra's project manager to identify and implement a backup solution withoutconsidering the scenario that occurred?3. What actions should have been taken to prevent this from happening? By whom?4. What effects do situations such as this one have on the way customer organizations approach projects?5. What should be some of the primary lessons learned by Electra Consulting?

Question

Accepted Answer

Below is the solution:-