I am continuing this month with my BlackBerry story.
Yes, BlackBerry today is a leading security company. Yes, its technology is still used by major organisations across the world. But the handset – the very thing that defined its identity – is nowhere to be found. The PlayBook tablet never conquered the market. So what really went wrong?
As I mentioned before, I was an analyst based in Slough while the rest of my team was in Canada. I worked as a Technical Change Analyst within an IT service management environment, and that perspective has stayed with me. From where I sat, BlackBerry was still powerful. It had the brand, the capability, and the story. Which is why the question has never been simple.
Was it management?
Was it IT governance?
Was it the data centre outage in Paris that shook global confidence?
Or was it the pressure to release products like the PlayBook before they were truly ready?
The PlayBook remains one of the clearest examples of pressure overtaking process. It launched without native email, calendar, or contacts – a decision widely criticised at the time and one that contradicted BlackBerry’s core identity as a communication-first company. A stronger release governance model would have delayed that launch until it met minimum viable standards aligned to user expectations.
To this day, I still reflect on that journey. I speak to some of my former peers – including one who worked as a data centre technician – and even now, there isn’t a single, clear answer. How does a company that was once flourishing lose direction?
I get goosebumps thinking about it.
What I do know is this: pressure changes decision-making. Having worked within Fortune 500, FTSE 100 and CAC 40 environments, I understand the level of pressure that comes with operating at that scale. In these organisations, you are not only delivering technology – you are protecting reputation, shareholder value, and public trust. Every incident is visible. Every failure is amplified by global media.
And that is where governance matters.If your IT governance is weak, your foundation is weak. Without strong ITIL practices and disciplined IT service management, you are exposing the very backbone of your business.
Continuous Service Improvement (CSI) is not optional – it is essential. It ensures that lessons are learned, risks are reduced, and services evolve with the market.
That is why I always emphasise the importance of IT governance – and the critical role of risk management within change and release processes.
Every decision to release a product must be interrogated. Why this deadline? Why this product, at this point in the market? Do we have the engineering capability to support it? Do we have the capacity to sustain it under pressure?
And more importantly – if something goes wrong, how quickly can we recover without causing major incidents?
These are not theoretical questions. They sit at the heart of operational resilience.
A well-managed change environment requires more than speed; it requires control. A properly maintained Configuration Management Database (CMDB) should provide visibility of systems, dependencies, and impact – guiding decision-making before, during, and after deployment.
Because when governance fails, the consequences are immediate.
Your brand is questioned.
Your revenue is affected.
And most critically, your customers lose confidence in your technology.
And once trust is lost in technology, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild.
The 2011 EMEA outage, widely reported across global media, exposed exactly what happens when resilience and recovery are not strong enough. A core network failure, combined with limitations in the backup systems, led to prolonged service disruption affecting millions of users. Robust disaster recovery design – including fully independent failover capabilities and clearer communication strategies – could have reduced both the impact and the loss of trust.
I had already moved on to Ericsson at the time, but I remember the shock. The disbelief. Watching events unfold while speaking to former colleagues. Even today, some of them cannot fully explain what went wrong.
For me, that moment symbolised something bigger than a technical failure – it was a breakdown in control, communication, and confidence.
But beyond systems and processes, there is leadership.
Not BlackBerry leadership specifically – but leadership in general.True leadership is not threatened by the people it leads. It listens. It aligns with strategy. It respects the vision of the founders while allowing teams to challenge, innovate, and improve. Your teams are your eyes and ears. If their voices are ignored, the organisation loses its ability to adapt.
Continuous Service Improvement (CSI) depends on that openness.
And yet, despite everything, I do not see this as a story of failure.
BlackBerry was never just about devices. It was about security – a level of encryption and trust that was ahead of its time. While the market shifted towards touchscreens and consumer-driven design, BlackBerry’s strength remained in protecting data and safeguarding communication.
That is why it still exists today.
Do I think BlackBerry will return with a new handset?
I hope so.
Because its design is timeless. You can recognise it instantly. It is classic. And it still works – I even have a friend who still uses their very first device.
But whether it returns to hardware or not, its legacy is secure.
The biggest stakeholder will always be the public. They decide what succeeds. Meeting their needs, responding effectively to incidents, and building resilient systems – that is what sustains any technology company.
I am proud of what BlackBerry was.
And I am proud of what it became.
Most importantly, I am proud of my journey.
I can say this with confidence: an African, a Black girl, walked into a Fortune 500 company that once produced the number one smartphone in the world – and she didn’t just observe.
She contributed. She tested systems. She stopped changes. She was part of something global.
And that is something no market shift can ever take away.