David, back to a subject that I don't think we came to a conclusion on.
A while back you posted the fact that the conversion phase is the smallest single step.
=============================================
- 33% planning (this includes inventory, assessment, impact, etc.)
- 17% fixing/coding <-- where CSGI fits
- 25% unit test
- 25% system test.
=============================================
I wanted to make some things clear (for myself and others who be wondering)...
1. these numbers represent the effort or time allocated to each of these phases out of the entire project.
2. Are there any numbers that show the percentages that est. how much each phase will cost as related to the budget for an entire project ?
I agree with you that the conversion phase is the smallest single step in the effort, but I think that when it comes to the budgeting and spending side of the equation, the conversion phase should be one the biggest drains on the budget. (if not now it has the potential to be)
This cost issue should also be greatly effected by the lack of available programmers and the fact that most companies have delayed their projects, which now almost guarantees a bottleneck.
Once the demand goes up, it will take the price per line and the programmer's salaries right along with it. This could, and in my opinion, will add to the costs of the Conversion Phase.
This is one of the reasons I believe that the Automated Factory Approach is the best method for converting code. Once these demand issues arise and prices start to rocket upward, many companies will realize that their allocated budgets for spending on the y2k problem have to be increased dramatically.
This will play havoc with companies bottom lines and will be one of the main causes of earnings warnings and lower earnings projections. Those companies who have even started early will be effected.
We are already seeing that companies who are just starting can't even find the necessary staff and those who already have projects are starting to lose programmers to the next highest bidder.
Companies have to either take charges ( which will make shareholders unhappy) to address the additional costs, or go out of business (which will make shareholders very very unhappy).
Now say you are a company that budgeted for you y2k project based on the normal course of business and revenue flows that you have been use to seeing over the past two years. Now all of the sudden the problems in Asia have started to effect your revenues while the costs for your ongoing year 2000 project are steadily rising due to the increase in demand and salaries.
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ?
If you don't allocate more towards the project, chances are you will lose some of you programmers and time constraints will be effected, which will make the project even more costly.
If you decide to up the ante and spend more towards the project then you are going to have to take a charge against your earnings (that have already been effected due to the problems overseas), you will see you stock price TANK and shareholders will hold you responsible.
If you do nothing, you will be out of business and expect to get hit with a class action.
The only hope you have is to try to limit the increasing costs, while keeping your project on track to finish on time.
You will have to find a way to have the code converted in a fast, accurate, and cost effective manner.
Any ideas ................... I have one >>>>>>>>>>> ConSyGen.
Seriously, it really doesn't matter who you go to, but you will have to turn to the Automated Factory Approach. Most CFO's and CEO's are going to have a fit when they realize what is coming their way, but they will also understand (we hope) that adding more to the pot is only going to make the matter worse. You have to look for a method that is a viable solution. Throwing more money at it won't work when you are dealing with a limited supply and ever increasing demand. You will end up having to throw money at it every time someone else tries the same thing. Trying to keep your in-house project "in-house" will not be a viable plan once the flood gates open. Even if you have signed on with Kea, or some other end to end provider, they will also feel the increase in costs and they in turn will, in my opinion, have to turn to the conversion houses. This is especially true for companies who are late in the game and are just now trying to start projects.
|
