By Dominic Hill, Consultant, Siemens Enterprise Communications Limited
There have been a number of papers and presentations recently looking at the nature of Business Continuity (BC) and tools used to deliver it – from the future of the BIA to the importance of building evacuations. With the imminent arrival of Part 2 of the British Standard for Business Continuity Management (BS 25999-2), there will be a defined management system – the BCMS - and a means of measuring performance of Business Continuity capabilities, should organisations choose to do so. But are we missing something? Have we created our own definition of continuity?
The Oxford English Dictionary (1999 edition) defines continuity as “the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time”.
In BS 25999-1:2006, business continuity is defined as “strategic and tactical capability of the organisation to plan for and respond to incidents and business disruptions in order to continue business operations at an acceptable pre-defined level”.
In this definition, the “unbroken and consistent existence” has been replaced with “plan for and respond to” and “continue”, words which imply reaction and recovery. If we look at the services offered within the BC/DR arena today, it is easy to see the focus on responding to incidents and recovering capabilities in:
- The provision of disaster recovery services;
- The provision of work area recovery services;
- The variety of software to generate, maintain and disseminate plans;
- A plethora of communications tools allowing call cascades and other abilities.
Many of these services, and the BC capabilities of the organisations that use them, are reaching levels of maturity never before seen, and are thus giving those organisations a degree of confidence in their ability to recover.
This is laudable, nay essential, as the BC manager’s maxim should be “Expect the unexpected”! But do these services really provide continuity for the business? It could be argued that this is really business recovery, although for some that term has its own distinct meaning. Are we missing something? Would it not be even better to avoid the incident or business interruption in the first place, leaving the recovery for when there is no other option?
Why have a disaster if you can avoid it?
Many organisations spend a significant amount of money and effort on recovery capabilities and the associated plans, but neglect to address the issues that would make the operation more resilient and less in need of recovery in the first place. Could that money be better spent on disaster avoidance in the first place? To a degree the answer is going to be dependent upon the state of the organisation, its ability to change and the willingness, of those in charge, to accept risk.
A key tenet of BS 25999 is “embedding the BCM culture within the organisation” and this is probably the single most important thing when it comes to being pro-active about disasters. When a system, regardless of whether it is business or IT, is designed and operated with continuity in mind, the subsequent need to mitigate risks with recovery capabilities can be reduced.
Resilience: The unbroken operation
In order for a system to have unbroken operation, the threats to that operation must be reduced or removed. When BCM is a recognised part of the daily processes, and not something that gets retrofitted in the later stages of the system lifecycle, it is easy to consider these potential threats at the start of that lifecycle. Typically the causes of threats include:
Location of the system – This has a wide scope and should consider location at all levels – both physically (geographically and within the campus and building) and logically (within the organisation). Taking as an example a new IT system, are there opportunities to implement it in a location discrete from main user population as well as from physical risks arising from location and environmental factors.
From the business viewpoint, the who and how should be considered. Does the system require input from certain members of staff whose roles make them unlikely to be available at the same time? Is specialist knowledge vested in a single individual, thus creating a potential single point of failure?
Access to the system – Again this works at both physical and logical levels. Again considering an IT example, there is little point in implementing a new system and a corresponding recovery capability if the system is situated in a location that does not afford it appropriate protection – environmentally or from a physical security point of view. A classic technology example is siting critical equipment in an IT suite that is used by members of IT staff as a shortcut to other parts of the building. A large number of incidents arise from human error in some shape or form, accidents do happen.
Similarly from a business viewpoint – especially in these days of increased concerns over the safety of data – who has access to what, by what means and for what purpose must be considered. For example, are personnel records only available as paper copies – if so where are they held, is it secure?
Design of the system – A single IT system can look cheaper than a design that addresses potential single points of failure with some sort of redundancy of functionality. On paper that is. When the cost of the corresponding recovery capability is included the picture may be very different. Similar arguments exist for non-IT tasks, where the ability for multiple teams (possibly on different sites) to carry out the same activity can address not only loss of site scenarios but also loss of staff – whether through pandemic or other cause.
Systems documentation - or the lack of it - In today’s fast moving world it is not uncommon for less than ideal documentation to be produced during the development phases, as the pressure to deploy the system increases. Limited documentation leads to a potential lack of understanding of how things work, which increases the threat of mistakes. Furthermore it is very hard to maintain and protect the system if it is not clearly understood where the interdependencies lie and the possible impacts when changes occur around it.
Understanding the business is one of the four stages in B2 25999 and is as essential to the resilience aspects of BC as to the recovery aspects. Good systems documentation has a major part to play in this.
Control of changes to the system – most systems will, after an initial period, operate in a steady state, until something changes! This is especially true in IT, which due to the ever developing nature of the technology is probably subject to more change than most business processes – the changes occurring in the form of software patches, upgrades, hardware enhancements for capacity improvements etc. The same can also be seen in the non-IT space, where changes to business process manifest as the results of mergers and acquisitions or the outsourcing of parts of the operation. By controlling the way change occurs – especially considering the impacts from all aspects – the threat from change can be minimised.
When these areas are considered throughout the whole lifecycle of a system and appropriate decisions made, the result will be a more resilient system that is fit for the purpose for which it was intended. As with anything in the BC space, this is not rocket science, just common sense, but it appears to be something that is often ignored in favour of cheaper or short-term solutions or because the challenges are too great.
Challenges associated with implementing resilience
Implementing resilience can have significant challenges associated with it, including:
- Cost;
- Outsourcing/Supply chain management;
- How to get there from here
However, each of these challenges provides a means to it’s own solution as they can be used to improve resilience.
Total Cost of Continuity
This is a variant of the well known “Total cost of ownership” concept and is proposed here as a means to understand exactly what costs are incurred in providing true continuity for an organisation.
Typically organisations look at their recovery contracts, sum the costs and label the result as the cost of BC. This is misleading as it takes no account of the cost involved in setting up and maintaining BC within the organisation. In particular it ignores the cost of resources required for the exercising (testing) of recovery plans, both IT and non-IT. These costs can be quite considerable when the effort required for preparation and carrying out exercises across the different departments is considered, but they are often lost within the operational costs of the departments involved. Also. the more specialist the recovery processes the more resource is required, in addition to a potential for greater frequency of exercising (to ensure that all appropriate staff gain the necessary experience).
If a more realistic approach is taken and the resource and exercising costs (in particular) are included, the total cost of continuity may well look very different. This may provide sufficient justification for implementing a more robust design that negates the need for much recovery.
Outsourcing
More and more the outsourcing of discrete parts of operation is seen as a cost saving exercise. While this may be true, there may also be benefits in the form of decoupling those parts of the operation physically as well as logically. Resilience may be improved, but out of sight is out of mind as the saying goes – so the emphasis shifts to one of supplier management, which must be supported by carefully prepared and suitably detailed legal contracts. This is an area of BC that is experiencing rapid growth as organisations mature in their own continuity capabilities and start to look more closely at those suppliers (outsourcers included) on which they depend.
Change as a mechanism for delivering resilience (and hence continuity)
Applying changes to an existing system in order to improve resilience is rarely easy – especially if it involves withdrawing previous access. It is easy to argue that things “have always been done that way” and that disasters had not occurred so change is unnecessary. The point can be illustrated with statistics, but not conclusively, for either side! The governing factor must be what is best for the unbroken operation of the business in a fit for purpose solution.
Fortunately, change can work in favour of these attempts to achieve resilience. In the area of technology (not exclusive to IT) the need to refresh equipment every three or four years provides an opportunity to implement measures to improve resilience. Similarly in the business space, changes in process, whether brought about by technology or changes in business practice, can be used to improve resilience here too.
Summary
While the typical focus of BC today is arguably on recovery activities, there is much to be gained from the pro-active side of continuity – providing the unbroken operation in a way that is fit for purpose. Maybe the time has now come for attention to be paid to this much neglected area of BC; maybe it will be the next to mature? After all, why have a disaster if you don’t need to?
Siemens Enterprise Communications Limited will be exhibiting at the Business Continuity Expo and Conference held at EXCEL Docklands from 2- 3rd April 2008 - the UK's definitive event for managing risk, resilience and recovery. This event will explore the solutions and best practice to ensure operational continuity and protect a company's interests before during and after an incident.
For further information visit www.businesscontinuityexpo.co.uk
Ian Masters, UK sales and marketing director at Double-Take Software, discusses Continuous Data Protection (CDP) to separate the buzz from the benefits. For organisations focused on solving real-world problems, understanding the distinction will help them make the best choice to safeguard their electronic assets.
There is some uncertainty in the market over what defines CDP. The Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) defines CDP as “a methodology that continuously captures or tracks data modifications and stores changes independent of the primary data, enabling recovery from any point in the past. CDP systems can provide fine granularity of restorable objects to infinitely variable recovery points”.
The capabilities described by the SNIA definition of CDP are not trivial. They require a technology solution that stores all data changes as they happen and can arbitrarily return to infinite points in time to recover previous versions of data. This makes true CDP a very expensive proposition for customers. This expense may be difficult to justify when an organisation’s data isn’t perceived as sufficiently valuable and even where the value is recognised, most can’t afford these types of CDP solutions. In this sense, true true-CDP products are a solution to a problem that customers cannot afford to solve.
Companies are instead opting for near-CDP solutions or backup and recovery solutions that integrate CDP-like capabilities. While solutions based on the strictest definitions of CDP may eventually gain momentum in the market as the enabling technology comes down in price, the majority of businesses don't have a Recovery Point Objective (RPO) that requires, and justifies, this type of CDP. There is clearly a need for something that provides better recoverability than tape but is simple and affordable enough to deploy across the enterprise, not just on a few systems.
Another issue affecting take up of CDP is that it has traditionally taken a very narrow approach to business continuity. Solutions have mainly focused on file-level recovery and not application data like that created by Microsoft Exchange Server or Microsoft SQL Server. If the first line of defense in a disaster recovery solution is protecting the data, the second is undoubtedly protecting the application. Providing a real-time copy of the data and availability of the application associated with it, enables a Recovery Time Objective (RTO) significantly better than that provided by solutions like tape backup or CDP. CDP provides no provision for RTO and focuses solely on RPO, which is only half of the customer challenge.
While true-CDP solutions have not gained widespread traction, the promise of CDP, despite its problems, thrives. It does so in the form known as near-CDP. Many traditional backup vendors have differentiated themselves from their competitors by integrating CDP capabilities into existing solutions rather than attacking the concept head-on. These solutions provide many, but not infinite, points of recovery. This satisfies most customers’ RPO goals far more readily than relying on retrieval from tape-based solutions by providing snapshot copies of important data for recovery purposes.
Though near-CDP promises to be an easy way to augment the backup solutions that customers use today, it still doesn’t account for the complete recovery of a company’s business critical systems. To the end-user, recovery isn’t complete until they are able to resume their work where they left off. This means not only restoring a previous version of the data but also the operating systems and applications and all the other aspects that are required to give users access to that information. Double-Take Software believes the future of CDP lies in hybrid solutions that incorporate an overall recovery management strategy combining data replication and protection, application availability and point-in-time recovery.
Alternatives exist today that provide this unified approach to recovery. In these solutions, asynchronous file-based replication is combined with application availability and snapshot technologies to fulfill at least the spirit, if not the definition, of CDP. In terms of data protection, real-time replication provides for the continuous capture of changes to protected data and the storage of those changes separate from the production data. If needed, a company can recover to this real-time copy of the data in the event of a major disaster. Because these solutions are typically based on byte-level replication, including features such as compression and bandwidth throttling, they are more efficient at moving data across long distances when compared to the data movement technologies employed by purebred CDP solutions.
For recovery from unwanted changes such as those caused by human error, viruses, or corruption, disk-based snapshot capabilities allow rollback to multiple (albeit not infinite) copies of the protected data. Disk-based snapshots are usually difference-based (copy on write technology) and consume less storage space. Their periodic nature also further reduces storage requirements when compared to keeping infinitely accessible copies of data changes. A combination of data replication and disk-based snapshots ensure that the RPO goals for a company’s data can be met.
Where these solutions truly exceed the promise of CDP is their ability to ensure RTO goals as well as RPO goals. By continuously monitoring the availability of the production systems and failing over to a secondary system in the event of an outage, they provide an RTO of minutes rather than hours or days. Most true-CDP solutions today do not provide any high availability for the applications creating the data and instead leave recovery to the IT administrator who is most likely using a complex, manual, time consuming process.
Evaluating the Options
No solution is ‘one size fits all’. Each company’s business is unique so each business continuity recovery plan will be different. However, the high-level approach to business continuity planning is generally the same. The key to business continuity and recovery planning is to first understand the impact an outage, loss or major disaster would have on your ability to provide a product or service and then pick the right procedures and tools to minimise that impact.
The first recommendation we make is to assess and rank each of the business systems within your organisation and assign the appropriate level of protection to them. Not all systems require the same levels of protection; in fact, some may not need protection at all. Successful plans account for this and are able to restore systems defined as business-critical as rapidly as possible while making the most of limited resources. The challenge for most companies in prioritizing these systems and choosing the right solution is simply a matter of quantifying the value of the data the solutions protect and calculating the Return on Investment (ROI).
Summary
The reality of CDP is that it has not lived up to the buzz it generated. This is not because the promise of CDP isn’t appealing to customers but because CDP, as narrowly defined by industry organisations, was not permitted the opportunity to integrate with other data protection and recovery capabilities. A hybrid solution combines the best of CDP with the best of continuous data replication and application availability while keeping costs down. Successful vendors will continue to build CDP into their products where it is appropriate and successful IT organisations will learn to use the technology in a way that best addresses all of its recovery goals while staying within budget and without sacrificing capabilities.
Double-Take Software will be exhibiting at the Business Continuity Expo and Conference held at EXCEL Docklands from 2- 3rd April 2008 - the UK's definitive event for managing risk, resilience and recovery. This event will explore the solutions and best practice to ensure operational continuity and protect a company's interests before during and after an incident.
For further information visit www.businesscontinuityexpo.co.uk
BAA Gatwick, like all major international airports and airlines, has a crisis management team on standby 24 hours a day. Every year, around 30 million passengers travel through Gatwick and the Crisis Team is on hand to ensure that any event with the potential to cause major disruption is kept to a minimum.
Until now the team were contacted via pagers, but as they all now have mobile phones the airport’s Contingency Planning Manager, Barry Owen, began looking for a way to communicate by text message instead. Esendex’s simple, reliable and cost-effective ‘desktop messenger’ service offered the solution.
It enables Gatwick’s Call Centre, which is responsible for contacting the Crisis Team, to send out a short message from a network computer to the mobile phones of various user group members simultaneously and within seconds. Barry Owen says:
"The pager service we were using offered us a text message facility but it didn’t allow recipients to text back - so in an emergency we’d have a group of people all trying to call one telephone number to confirm they’d received the message.
The team’s emergency response is regularly tested through training exercises - getting the communication right at the start is key. During the busy summer months we also made use of the new system to keep the team up-to-date on how the day-to-day airport operation was running and this proved invaluable"
James R. Mitchell, CBCP
Director, eBRP Solutions, Inc.
Cost vs. Benefit
The standard practice of conducting a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) to determine the basic recovery requirements (Mission Critical Processes, RTO’s, RPO’s, Critical Applications, Suppliers, and other Resources) is a vital phase of every Business Continuity Management program.
The BIA process can be long and difficult – no matter what data collection method is used. Is the return on your BIA investment (time, manpower and resources) offset by the value of the results?
If a BIA is a fundamental part of BCM, the underlying cost may simply be a necessary evil. But, when a BIA is a one-time ‘project’ – as in many organizations – is the cost realistically proportional to the value?
Some organizations conduct a BIA expecting to repeat the process at regular intervals. However, once the initial BIA is completed and the true cost known, such expectations are often abandoned.
Focus on change
Failure to update a BIA is a leading cause of Recovery Plan failure. Change is the only constant in business. A BCM program lacking up-to-date BIA data yields Plans that don’t reflect the organization’s true requirements.
Intending to update a BIA is easy; yet the update process often fails.
Consider the effort required to complete the original BIA: questionnaire preparation, distribution and collection; interviews to “normalize” the results, plus the cost of analysis and report generation.
Often, the original BIA process “project”, may take three to eight months. Significant business changes make the prospect of repeating that lengthy process daunting. Postponing the update may be rationalized. Like most things in life, postponing difficult tasks allows them to grow more unwieldy
To streamline the process, the updated BIA must focus on the changes – rather than repeat the entire process. It is likely that much of the information from the earlier BIA is still valid. The update process simply entails drilling down to which business processes have changed, and how those changes affect the original BIA results. Of course, the method used to conduct the earlier BIA will determine just how easy – or how difficult – the update process becomes.
In Information Technology, an updating process is generally ongoing (Change Management) because IT changes have a direct impact on daily operations. In business operations, changes occur regularly, but are seldom, if ever, documented. (To be fair, no matter how robust the IT program, not every organization consistently correlates its Change Management information with its DR Plan.)
The Whole is Greater than the sum of its Parts
Is it sufficient for individual business process “Owners” or function leaders to update their own critical resource requirements? Yes, if the update method allows for the capture of changes in enterprise-wide dependencies (on other processes, applications, etc.). But no effective update can be conducted in a vacuum; any change to critical dependencies or resources is likely to have a corresponding affect upon those dependent processes.
While it may be efficient for a process team to update its own BIA, only by collecting and integrating changes across the enterprise can the true impact of business changes emerge.
The Path of Least Resistance
Frequently, the cost of updating a BIA (in manpower and time) is perceived as unjustifiably high. Not updating a BIA may become an accepted risk. BCM management may opt to focus on BC/DR Plan updating (assuming most process owners understand the impacts of change and will modify their Plans appropriately) without revising the BIA. The more burdensome the BIA process, the higher the propensity not to repeat it.
Once made, such a decision often becomes institutionalized. Later, the failure to reflect fundamental changes in the organization’s structure may result in flawed Plans and a failed recovery. With luck, flaws show up in a test or exercise – not a real life incident.
What’s in your Toolbox?
Does your existing BIA format lend itself to manipulation? Or do you have to start from scratch? Do you use software that integrates BIA and Plan development?
Does the BIA format lend itself to the use of collaborative tools? Can business process owners gain access to the original BIA survey? Network- or Web-based collaborative tools reduce the pain of updating a BIA, while enabling monitoring and auditing of the process by the BCM leaders or planners.
Assess your options, and pick a BIA updating method that works best for your situation. It may not be free, it may be time-consuming, and it may not be painless. But it will pay dividends if you have a disruptive event.
An out-of-date BIA exponentially increases the chances of Plan failure. The BIA provides the core upon which an organization’s Plans depend. Without up-to-date BIA information, the validity of Plans should be questioned, and their successful execution must be suspect.
eBRP Solutions, Inc will be exhibiting at the Business Continuity Expo and Conference held at EXCEL Docklands from 2- 3rd April 2008 - the UK's definitive event for managing risk, resilience and recovery. This event will explore the solutions and best practice to ensure operational continuity and protect a company's interests before during and after an incident.
For further information visit www.businesscontinuityexpo.co.uk
Insights into US homeland security science and technology priorities, expert analysis of a range of threats from terrorism to pandemics, and examination of major security programmes in the UK and overseas are all features of the International Security & National Resilience (ISNR London) conference, which will be held at London’s Olympia from 3-5 December 2007. ISNR London incorporates the former APTS show.
DAY 1
Top US Department of Homeland Security official to give insights
Day One of ISNR London is designated the US Department of Homeland Security 2007 Science & Technology Stakeholders International Conference – the first ever initiative of its type to be staged in the UK. The S&T Directorate is the gateway to the US Department of Homeland Security for private sector and academic solutions providers and this event will provide a unique opportunity for conference delegates from the UK and other European countries to meet with senior DHS leaders.
The Honourable Jay M Cohen, the Department’s Under Secretary, Science & Technology, will lead the plenary level insights into how the DHS S&T Directorate is employing science and technology to enhance security and safety. Participants will include the S&T Directors of Transition, Research and Innovation.
DAYS 2 AND 3
Highlights include:
Matching capability with threats
The plenary session will be led by Admiral Sir Alan West, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Security and Counter-terrorism; Dr Paul Weissenberg, Director, Aerospace, GMES, Security and Defence, Enterprise and Industry Directorate General, EU Commission and the Honourable Jay Cohen. Three of the world’s most senior government representatives will discuss how new strategies and technologies are being adopted to enhance security on a national and international level.
Terrorist attack scenarios
The key issues concerning critical infrastructure protection will be put under the microscope by leading experts. Global and generic threats, including terrorism and pandemics, will be examined, and insights provided into UK and wider European CIP policy. A significant new feature for a conference of this type is two table-top exercise scenarios on defeating the terrorist threat to CIP. The subjects are an attack on a major event and a city centre.
Illegal migration threat
E-borders is a key component of UK Government’s border transformation programme and central to its strategy for immigration and asylum. The conference stream on integrated border management will feature a session examining the major milestones of this multi-billion pound programme. There will also be analysis of the security consequences of illegal migration, a factor which is changing the social, economic and political landscapes of communities on a global basis.
The challenge of Al Qaeda
Internal security, policing and intelligence are high on virtually every government’s agenda. The challenges addressed in this stream include changing Al Qaeda operational patterns in Europe, the recruitment of terrorists via the web and the impact of global insecurity on the UK. Also examined is the role that the media can play in the event of a major crisis and how it can be used more effectively to disrupt a threat.
NATO – an opportunity
The role of the NATO Technology Development Programme is to identify national capability gaps and achieve common approaches to technology requirements. A dedicated session will highlight the requirement gaps in the NATO programme and how they can be exploited by potential suppliers.
For further information please contact Victoria Bailey or Nick Johnstone at CMS Strategic on Tel: +44 (0)20 8748 9797 or email: info@cmsstrategic.com
For more information about ISNR London please visit: www.isnrlondon.com or contact Richard Clarke, Event Director, Tel: +44 (0) 208 910 7142 or email: richard.clarke@reedexpo.co.uk
& so are new pedals...
Having reported to you in the pages of this journal the other day, that is to say on Tuesday, November 20, 2007, the failure of one of the Pedalite Pedals of my review set and my assumption that water might have been the culprit I would like to update you on what it happening.
Firstly, it seems that it is some sort of mechanical problem rather than water and something in fact appears to have come adrift inside the pedal affected. More details on that as soon as I get the information back from the good folks at Pedalite International who now have the set of old pedals to carry out investigations up them.
I now have a brand new set of pedals on my bike and, as before, I am thrilled with the powerful flashes of light from the LEDs in the pedals. I feel so much safer riding my bicycle in the dark, and often for me this is a must; the riding of it in the dark, that is.
The nice folks from Pedalite International in fact came personally, but then I do not live a million miles away from their offices, to change the pedals on the night of Wednesday, November 21, 2007, so that investigation into the failure of the pedal could begin the next day. Now that is what I call customer relation management.
There is a chance that the set that I was given on the Cycle 2007 Show was in fact a “Pre-Production Model” and now a proper production run of the pedals and the failure could be due to that fact. We shall find out in due course I hope and think.
I have to say that I am very happy that the last report and verdict on the Pedalite Pedals is not going to be the final one as I am, in general, very fond of those pedals. We all hope that this is but a freak incident and all will be well in the end. As Simon Theobald, the Managing Director of Pedalite International, said to me on the phone, Murphy and Sod are alive and well and their law often still has bearing on things.
I doubt that there is anything out there on the market that gives the same visible protection to the cyclist as do those pedals and they are an “always on” system, with no batteries to worry about and no chance of forgetting to turning them on.
I shall keep you updated as to the outcome of the investigation and as to the further riding experience of mine with the Pedalites.
© M Smith (Veshengro), November 2007
Further to my previous article about the Pedalite Pedals here is the final? – I think – verdict on them, and it is not as good as previously thought.
After having now used the Pedalite Pedals for less a month I must say that my first impression of “Wow! I am bowled over” has rather changed.
This is due to the fact that one of the pedals, the right side one has, probably due to the amount of rain and associated mud we have had in the last couple of days, basically, ceased working, as regards to the lights. The white diode only now works – as a stationary light and non-flashing – when the pedals are actually in motion – and that only, it would appear, as and when it feels like it – and the other two diodes, the amber and the red are no longer working at all. The strobe effect is gone and there is no longer any energy left after the pedalling has stopped while the left side one, so far, is working still as well as before.
I must say that had this not been a review sample and had I actually paid good money in the form of £34.95 for it I would not only be rather disappointed but in actual fact would be demanding my money back
That these pedals, or at least one of them, should have ceased working after only such a short period of time is not a good omen.
Therefore I have to say, in all honesty now, that I have to withdraw all my previous good reviews of the Pedalite pedals, as I owe it to my integrity and especially to my readers to speak the truth.
I can therefore no longer recommend Pedalite pedals. Improvements certainly will have to be made by the manufacturer in that moisture, rain, etc. do not adversely affect the electronics and other workings of those pedals.
Considering, as said, that the pedals have only been in use with me for about a month – they were fitted on October 17, 2007 and it is November 20, 2007 at time of writing – I must now give this product a definite and absolute thumbs down.
At the retail price of £35 those pedals should be entirely moisture proof – for I can only explain the failure to the fact that I have had to cycle thru water in the recent day or so – and should not be failing like the review set that I was supplied with did.
If it is a water-related failure of the pedals then I can only say that this is not a good sign and this product falls into the same category as the “Bikehut” three-LED front-lamp that failed on me in less that 5 months due to water having gotten into the workings and shortened out the LED chip and leaching out the acid of the batteries. I was told in that instance – that light I had actually purchased and it was no review sample – that the light must be kept out of direct rain by both the retailer and manufacturer's agents. Sorry? Pardon? Do they really expect anyone NOT to use the lights on the cycles in the rain? They cannot be serious, to paraphrase a certain tennis player.
© M V Smith, November 2007
