Incident: Common Application System Glitches Cause College Application Chaos

Published Date: 2013-10-21

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident happened in August 2013. [Article 22254]
System 1. Common Application system - Version 4 of the Common App [22254]
Responsible Organization 1. The Common App, a nonprofit organization based in Arlington, was responsible for causing the software failure incident [22254].
Impacted Organization 1. Prospective students applying to colleges and universities [Article 22254] 2. Common Application organization [Article 22254] 3. Schools such as the University of Chicago, Columbia, Duke, Northwestern, and Princeton University [Article 22254] 4. Hobsons, the contractor providing technical support for the Common App [Article 22254] 5. ApplicationsOnline, the organization running the Universal College Application seeking to capitalize on the Common App's issues [Article 22254] 6. Students like Arjun Iyer, Nathan Myers, and Nicole Welch who faced difficulties in submitting their applications [Article 22254]
Software Causes 1. Technical difficulties such as frozen screens and login issues [22254] 2. Trouble uploading recommendations and required documents [22254] 3. Glitches in the software causing delays in loading documents and processing payments [22254]
Non-software Causes 1. High volume of applications and users: The surge in the number of students using the Common App, with over 723,576 students seeking college admission through the platform in the last school year, contributed to the failure incident [Article 22254]. 2. Lack of alternative options: The reliance on the Common App as the primary application platform for many colleges and universities, with about 35% of member institutions using it exclusively, made it challenging to have a backup plan in case of system failure [Article 22254].
Impacts 1. Prospective students faced frustration and anxiety due to glitches in the online college application program, leading to frozen screens, multiple fee payments for a single application, and being shut out of their accounts [22254]. 2. Counselors experienced difficulties in uploading recommendations and required documents, causing stress and delays in the application process [22254]. 3. Several universities, including the University of Chicago, Columbia, Duke, and Northwestern, had to extend their application deadlines due to the Common App struggles, impacting students' timelines and plans [22254]. 4. The Common App faced criticism for its lack of customer service, slow troubleshooting guidance, and the absence of a phone helpline for immediate assistance, affecting the overall user experience [22254]. 5. Students like Nathan Myers had to endure technical issues for days, such as documents not loading, payment registration failures, and the need for refunds for overpayments, leading to frustration and extra effort in the application process [22254].
Preventions 1. Implementing thorough testing procedures before launching the new version of the Common App to identify and address any software glitches or technical difficulties [22254]. 2. Providing better customer support options, such as a phone helpline, to assist users facing issues with the application process [22254]. 3. Offering a backup option, like the Universal College Application, to mitigate the impact of software failures on students and universities [22254].
Fixes 1. Improving customer service by providing a phone number for direct assistance and faster troubleshooting guidance on the Common App's help and Facebook pages [22254]. 2. Enhancing the reliability and performance of the software to ensure a smoother application process for students and counselors [22254]. 3. Implementing a refund system for students who overpay due to technical issues [22254]. 4. Considering the need for multiple vendors or alternative application platforms to reduce reliance on a single system and mitigate risks of failure [22254].
References 1. Common App officials 2. Hobsons, a Cincinnati-based contractor 3. Scott Anderson, senior director for policy for the Common App 4. Marisha Wright, a counselor at Eleanor Roosevelt High School 5. Joshua Reiter, president of ApplicationsOnline 6. Nathan Myers, a student at Quince Orchard High School 7. Lew Myers, Nathan Myers' father 8. Rick Clark, Georgia Tech’s director of admission 9. Nicole Welch, a student at Walt Whitman High School

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring one_organization, multiple_organization (a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization: The Common Application program faced a cascade of glitches and technical difficulties with its fourth online version, causing frustration among prospective students and counselors. This incident highlighted vulnerabilities in the college admissions system and led to universities like the University of Chicago, Columbia, Duke, and Northwestern extending their deadlines due to the issues with the Common App [22254]. (b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization: The software failure incident with the Common Application program prompted some universities to extend their deadlines, and it also led to discussions about the need for multiple vendors to provide college application services. Joshua Reiter, president of ApplicationsOnline, which runs the Universal College Application, mentioned the importance of having alternatives to the Common App, indicating that there are other options available for students and universities [22254].
Phase (Design/Operation) design, operation (a) The software failure incident in the Common Application system can be attributed to design issues introduced during the system development phase. The article mentions that the new version of the Common App, Version 4, was retooled in an attempt to make the application process easier for students. However, the article highlights that the new system had glitches and technical difficulties, leading to frozen screens, multiple fee payments, account access issues, and trouble uploading documents [22254]. (b) Additionally, the software failure incident can also be linked to operational issues caused by the operation or misuse of the system. Students reported facing challenges in submitting their applications, with some experiencing delays, payment processing issues, and difficulties in completing the application process. The article describes how students like Nathan Myers faced technical hurdles while trying to submit their applications, leading to frustration and delays in the submission process [22254].
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system, outside_system The software failure incident related to the Common Application program can be categorized as both within_system and outside_system. (a) within_system: The software failure incident within the system is evident from the glitches, technical difficulties, frozen screens, multiple fee payments for a single application, and being shut out of accounts reported by students and counselors [22254]. (b) outside_system: The software failure incident outside the system is highlighted by the challenges faced by students and counselors in uploading recommendations and documents, the need for multiple vendors, and the extension of deadlines by universities due to the Common App struggles [22254].
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions, human_actions (a) The software failure incident in the Common Application program was primarily due to non-human actions, specifically software troubles and technical difficulties. Glitches in the online system led to frozen screens, multiple fee payments for a single application, account access issues, and trouble uploading required documents [22254]. (b) Human actions also played a role in the software failure incident as counselors and students struggled to overcome technical difficulties, and some students faced challenges in submitting their applications due to issues with the system. Additionally, the Common App officials acknowledged shortcomings in serving students and pledged to improve the system [22254].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) software (a) The articles do not provide information about the software failure incident occurring due to hardware issues [22254]. (b) The software failure incident reported in the articles is related to issues originating in the software itself. The Common Application program faced a cascade of glitches, technical difficulties, frozen screens, multiple fee payments for a single application, login issues, trouble uploading documents, and other technical challenges that affected students and counselors [22254]. The Common App officials acknowledged shortcomings in serving students and pledged to improve the reliability of their service. The new version of the Common App, despite being less cluttered and more interactive, experienced various glitches and technical difficulties, leading to frustration among users [22254].
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) non-malicious (a) The software failure incident described in the articles does not indicate any malicious intent behind the glitches and technical difficulties experienced by students using the Common Application system. The issues were primarily attributed to software troubles, technical difficulties, and system shortcomings rather than any deliberate actions to harm the system or its users [22254]. (b) The software failure incident can be categorized as non-malicious, as it was mainly a result of unintended software glitches and technical issues that affected the functionality of the Common Application system, causing frustration and inconvenience to students and counselors during the college application process [22254].
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) poor_decisions, accidental_decisions (a) The software failure incident related to the Common Application program for college admissions was primarily due to poor decisions. The incident was caused by a cascade of glitches in the major online college application program, which frustrated prospective students and prompted universities to push back their deadlines [22254]. The new version of the Common App was retooled in an attempt to make the application process easier for students, but it ended up compounding the angst of many college-bound students due to software troubles and technical difficulties [22254]. The Common App officials acknowledged shortcomings in serving students nationwide and admitted that the new Common Application had not been a reliable service for many users [22254]. Additionally, the Common App faced criticism for eliminating the paper option, leaving the entire process vulnerable to a major collapse [22254]. (b) The software failure incident related to the Common Application program for college admissions was also influenced by accidental decisions. The incident led to unintended consequences such as students facing frozen screens, paying multiple fees for a single application, being shut out of their accounts, and having trouble uploading recommendations and required documents [22254]. The glitches in the system caused frustration and anxiety among students, counselors, and university officials, highlighting the unintended negative impact of the software failure incident [22254].
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) development_incompetence, accidental (a) The software failure incident in the Common Application program was primarily due to development incompetence. The new version of the Common App, Version 4, was retooled to make the application process easier for students. However, the cascade of glitches, technical difficulties, frozen screens, multiple fee payments, and account access issues experienced by students and counselors indicated a lack of professional competence in the development and implementation of the software [22254]. (b) The software failure incident was also accidental in nature. The glitches and technical difficulties that left students frustrated and unable to submit their applications were unintended consequences of the software update. Students reported issues such as frozen screens, inability to log in, and payment problems, which were not intentional but rather accidental outcomes of the software failures [22254].
Duration temporary The software failure incident described in the articles appears to be temporary rather than permanent. The glitches and technical difficulties experienced by students and counselors while using the Common Application software were due to specific circumstances related to the launch of the new version of the program. These issues led to frozen screens, multiple fee payments, account login problems, and trouble uploading documents, causing frustration and delays for users [22254]. The Common App officials acknowledged the shortcomings in serving students and pledged to improve the system, indicating that the failure was not permanent but rather a result of specific technical challenges introduced by the new version of the software.
Behaviour crash, omission, value, other (a) crash: The software failure incident in the articles can be categorized as a crash. The Common Application program experienced a cascade of glitches, leaving students staring at frozen screens, being shut out of their accounts, and encountering technical difficulties in filing materials for college applications [22254]. (b) omission: The software failure incident can also be categorized as an omission. Students reported having trouble uploading recommendations and other required documents, indicating that the system omitted to perform its intended functions at instances [22254]. (c) timing: The software failure incident does not seem to be related to timing issues where the system performs its intended functions but too late or too early. (d) value: The software failure incident can be categorized as a value failure. Students reported paying multiple fees for a single application, which indicates that the system performed its intended functions incorrectly in terms of handling financial transactions [22254]. (e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit a byzantine behavior where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. (f) other: The software failure incident can be categorized as a glitch or technical difficulty that led to students experiencing various issues with the Common Application program, such as frozen screens, login problems, and payment processing errors [22254].

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception None None
Communication None None
Application None None

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence property, delay The consequence of the software failure incident described in the articles is primarily related to delays in the college application process due to the glitches in the Common Application system. Students faced issues such as frozen screens, multiple fee payments for a single application, being shut out of their accounts, and difficulty uploading required documents, leading to frustration and anxiety among college-bound students [22254]. The delays caused by the software failure incident forced universities like the University of Chicago and Columbia, Duke, and Northwestern universities to extend their application deadlines by one week to accommodate the technical difficulties faced by applicants [22254]. Additionally, the software failure incident led to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Georgia Tech extending their early application deadlines due to the technical difficulties experienced by students and counselors in filing materials [22254].
Domain knowledge (a) The software failure incident reported in the articles is related to the education industry. The Common Application system, which experienced glitches and technical difficulties, is used by over 515 colleges and universities, including prestigious institutions like the Ivy League schools and public flagships such as the University of Virginia, to help choose their incoming classes [22254]. The system is crucial for students applying to colleges and universities, and the failure of the software caused frustration and challenges for prospective students, counselors, and school officials involved in the college admissions process.

Sources

Back to List