Anyone who poo-poo's this issue has never been exposed to a sitiuation where the stakes are high and the problem is great.
If you have a mission-critical system that has the Year 2000 problem, it takes a lot of time to fix the problem. Correcting the code in a typical large system is about 25% of the problem. Managing the other risks around this issue is the bulk of the problem.
First, you have to find the changes required (tough, but mostly tedious, and there's room for error). I know of many cases where they don't know if they have the source code or not, and they know that they do not have documentation.
Then you have to fix the problems. Hopefully, you have the budget to fix this problem and keep up with your other required work.
Then you have to test the fix. This is not easy. For example, a typical financial trade is dependent on dozens of other computer systems for it to work, each of which is maintained outside of your control but on which your system is completely dependent. Ever try getting 5 people to agree on where to have dinner and what movie to see? Try 15 companies all trying to synchronize Year 2000 schedules and test plans.
Now about the other vendors. Your revenue is dependent on their operations working well. You cannot just take their word for it, you need to KNOW that they will work. However, they will not let you audit them internally; why should they? Any negative disclosures about their Year 2000 status could drive them out of business. (I know first-hand that a $30m division of Financial Technologies, Inc. of NY went out of business within 6 months of disclosing their negative Y2K status -- their competition (e. g. SEI Investments) ripped them to shreads on it). I also know from first-hand conversations that even major automobile manufacturers cannot get vendors to supply the level of information they need regarding readiness.
You cannot alter the deadlines on this issue. If a previously-compliant vendor acquires some new techology, they could slip back into non-compliance, leaving you no time to retest or switch to a contingency.
You cannot go back to the previous version of the software, either.
The company depends on this system for $100m a year.
If your system fails, first your customers will sue you. Then, when you think that you've completed the "Shakespearean Tragic Cycle" and paid the final price, your stockholders sue you personally for having mismanaged their company.
Again, anyone who poo-poo's this issue doesn't have a clue about what it's like to be in a real problematic situation. |
