Another great example how processes can sometimes be coupled in such a way that you can create a mess for the people in the process (tight coupling):
As posted in my previous post, I am using a chip-card for the Dutch Public Transport. This card acts as a travel pass and allows loading products onto it which act as tickets for public transport. More information can be found here.
One of the ways for travelling with the card is by loading credit products onto the card which act as a virtual wallet. You can do this manually, or you can load a product onto it which behaves in such a way that if your credit on the card drops below a certain threshold, it automatically does a debit transaction on your bank account and recharges the travel card. For this to work you need to purchase the product online and link it to the bank account of your choice.
I had almost activated the product on my card until I noticed the following phrase in the description of the product: "Always make sure sufficient money is in your bank account. If we cannot obtain the money from your account the card will be blocked. Unblocking the card can be done at a service desk."
Now here's the problem: two processes exist which are mixed incorrectly here:
- travel authorization
- debit transactions
Specifically the scenario when travelling with insufficient credit on the card and a low bank account balance causes issues: why would anyone want to block the entire travel card if I had insufficient balance?
There are a number of reasons why this is wrong and additionally there is one specific reason why this is fundamentally wrong:
- Insufficient bank balance still allows me to recharge the card from another bank account - so why block the entire card?
Fundamentally wrong:
- Many train stations and most bus stations do not have a service desk. To get to one I would need to travel!? Blocking the card does effectively restrict me from getting to a service desk.
What is documented here is an unnecessarily tight coupling between two distinctly different processes with distinctly different purposes. A better solution would have been to check at every check-in time anew whether or not I had to recharge the card. If the bank account balance was insufficient I would be denied that particular check-in.
Needless to say I did not activate that auto-recharge-card-credit-product on my card. You never know what happens and I do not intend to get stuck in the middle of nowhere just because an architect made a mistake (imho) by tightly coupling two disparate processes and by doing so shuts me down completely (travel-wise).
Wonder how long this situation will exist now that the government and the transportation companies are trying to get rid of the paper travel tickets...
- Roger
As posted in my previous post, I am using a chip-card for the Dutch Public Transport. This card acts as a travel pass and allows loading products onto it which act as tickets for public transport. More information can be found here.
One of the ways for travelling with the card is by loading credit products onto the card which act as a virtual wallet. You can do this manually, or you can load a product onto it which behaves in such a way that if your credit on the card drops below a certain threshold, it automatically does a debit transaction on your bank account and recharges the travel card. For this to work you need to purchase the product online and link it to the bank account of your choice.
I had almost activated the product on my card until I noticed the following phrase in the description of the product: "Always make sure sufficient money is in your bank account. If we cannot obtain the money from your account the card will be blocked. Unblocking the card can be done at a service desk."
Now here's the problem: two processes exist which are mixed incorrectly here:
- travel authorization
- debit transactions
Specifically the scenario when travelling with insufficient credit on the card and a low bank account balance causes issues: why would anyone want to block the entire travel card if I had insufficient balance?
There are a number of reasons why this is wrong and additionally there is one specific reason why this is fundamentally wrong:
- Travelling is registered/credit is consumed by checking in and out of the travel registration system by keeping the card close to a registration point (the card uses near-field-communication to communicate with the travel management system
- Insufficient credit for this travel does not mean that there is insufficient credit for all travel. It should be sufficient to deny check-in for this travel only.- Insufficient bank balance still allows me to recharge the card from another bank account - so why block the entire card?
Fundamentally wrong:
- Many train stations and most bus stations do not have a service desk. To get to one I would need to travel!? Blocking the card does effectively restrict me from getting to a service desk.
What is documented here is an unnecessarily tight coupling between two distinctly different processes with distinctly different purposes. A better solution would have been to check at every check-in time anew whether or not I had to recharge the card. If the bank account balance was insufficient I would be denied that particular check-in.
Needless to say I did not activate that auto-recharge-card-credit-product on my card. You never know what happens and I do not intend to get stuck in the middle of nowhere just because an architect made a mistake (imho) by tightly coupling two disparate processes and by doing so shuts me down completely (travel-wise).
Wonder how long this situation will exist now that the government and the transportation companies are trying to get rid of the paper travel tickets...
- Roger
No comments:
Post a Comment