Darlox

Linda Jojo actually has a pretty positive history in IT, from a given perspective. Her specialty (at least until now) has been outsourcing, and managing multiple outsourced IT vendors to build large platforms. She's done a lot of talks on properly managing enterprise projects with constellations of specialized outsourced teams.

Assuming that skill set was instrumental in getting her the gig, it could go either way. UA's internal IT team (which, let's face it, is pretty much CO's team with a fresh coat of paint) is working with an old/aging platform, and serving more masters than it is sane for anyone to have to serve, implementing technology mostly to execute management directives, rather than improve service delivery -- which are two very different goals.

If she begins a push to start bringing in best-of-breed providers in key areas, and supplementing UA's IT with world-class talent on well-defined, well-managed and scope-constrained projects, this could actually be a very positive thing for UA and its customers.

If, on the other hand, she was brought in to lower costs by hatcheting up the IT department and replacing them with a collection of lowest-bid providers who are never given enough agency to do anything except band-aid the systems and read off a tech support script... well... March 2012 will seem like a red-letter month by comparison!

I will remain cautiously optimistic until she makes her first major move. Then we'll see what mission she's been given from on-high.

nikolastojsin

^ Spot on - that is what I am hearing as well (you beat me by 30 minutes!).
And cautiously optimistic is definitely the way to go - though, frankly, I have to admit that I am encouraged by the fact that UA brought an outsider as a CIO and that she is also an Executive VP, which indicates more importance relative to her predecessor (read: more ability to get things done). I am also hoping that someone of her background would not want to come in from Rogers to UA to just cut costs... but, as Darlox said, let us see who she bring in first.

garykung

I don't she was responsible of most Rogers issues.

Let's be fair:

1. UA has multiple IT meltdowns in the last year. It is obvious that a new outsider is needed.

2. CIO at Rogers does not really in-charge of customer-oriented issues, like network (CTO), customer services (CCO). At best, she is only responsible for the website and sale system (internal or external).

A person coming from a bad company does not mean he/she is bad.

It is the same principal as "Doing the right thing does not mean you are correct".

bob_the_d

for me personally, i'm not particularly worried about her technical leadership. from what i've read so far (which isn't all that much, but it's not nothing) she seems like someone who can manage a complex legacy system well.

i guess the bigger question for me is whether she'll be able to navigate the political environment within UA's upper ranks we keep reading about. with some legacy UA executives being pushed out, it raises questions in my head. not because they came from the old united, per se, but more around how they treat people who don't agree with them. if linda jojo makes a decision that hypothetically is the right way to go, but the old guard doesn't like it, what will happen? to me, that's the bigger question.

channa

While the concern you have is certainly real, the glimmer of hope we have is that 1) they hired from the outside -- if they wanted someone with a CO-think background, they would have promoted from within; and 2) she is appointed as an EVP reporting directly to Smisek.

That is an indication that, at least organizationally, they realize that something is wrong and is in need of a change. For Smisek's own sake, he better think that.

halls120

Maybe this explains why the promised summer 2014 release of the new website never happened - someone said no rollout until we hire a new CIO.

BearX220

Great point. The last guy who questioned kingly wisdom on IT matters had to walk the plank, as I recall.

xzh445

Well, I am with you on the cautiously optimistac part, but polar opposite on the comment regarding being "CO's team with a fresh coat of paint". There are LOTS of people from both legacy carriers, from field ranks to Staff VP's. There is so much "The way WE did it" from both sides, that there is gridlock. Turf protection is a blood sport there. Yes, this all rolls up to the top as lack of melding the two cultures, but to say this is all former CO IT dept is fool's folly. A house cleaning is in order. And the logo on one's badge from 5 yrs ago should not be a deciding factor.


Uhhhhh. I don't think so.

nerdbirdsjc

I can't help but think of Joey Jojo of Simpsons fame...

uanj

While I don't have high hopes for anyone that Smisek chooses (look at Rainey, he does not even understand the product differences between FC and BC and is hard to understand because he will not remove HIS FOOT FROM HIS MOUTH before speaking....) we need to give her a chance.

In every country I travel I hear how that country's mobile carriers are the worst in customer service. (Was this a prerequisite for the job?)

luckypierre

Let's see, CEO crowing over the past year about cutting $2 billion in costs from the system and Wall Street responding with a big "Hallelujah," which scenario seems more likely?

fly18725

I think Wall Street understands that discretionary IT costs for an airline are relatively small compared to other controllable costs and that IT investments almost always yield future cost savings.

The only IT potential that would really get Wall Street excited is a realistic plan to escape GDS systems and their fees.

LaserSailor

FT is not a good place for biz analysis frankly.

Her job isn't to "make customers happy"

Her job is to oversee the assembly of an IT team that addresses UA IT needs. She does not need to understand the airline business to do this, with the right people on the bus.

Same argument with Jeff, of course.

BearX220

Do you know what the mission statement of The Walt Disney Company used to be, back in the glory days? A mission embraced by every animator, janitor, actor, Imagineer, IT wizard, and kid in a Pluto suit?

"To make people happy."

Disney clicked, back then, because everybody in the hierarchy understood that.

But an organization like United Airlines, where many / most in the hierarchy believe they have nothing to do with customers, customers are overentitled jerks or "self-loading cargo" actually, and "making them happy" is not their job, although it is a service organization, is intrinsically suboptimal.

The cultural license to distance oneself from the job of making customers happy is what leads pilots to cancel flights for blown reading lights and EWR gate agents to turn their back on people, etc.

I certainly hope Ms. Jojo does not share your view of her duties.

LaserSailor

I can assure to she doesn't share your views, either. It's amusing to see the biz gurus put their marketing face on and talk about company culture, mission statements..and selling that as the reason for company success....then turn around and do the work that needs to be done. Complex businesses like airlines don't succeed on simple slogans.

Go find Jack "neutron" welch talking about how valuable employees are on you tube as an example.