Hamasaki: 'the deadline for finishing MIS-type systems is
December 1998.... about 3 months from now'
______
From:
kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net (cory hamasaki)
do 21:31
Subject:
Re: Wheres all the accountants??????
Say meand,
help me out with this... I finally got around to flipping open my copy
of GC28-1251-02 and don't see an obvious reference to fiscal year
bounding of transactions, which is the crux of the Jo Anne Effect.
In the Executive Summary, there're some vague references to year-end
1999 processing... which is related to the Jo Anne Effect.
In Chapter One, there's some discussion of pre-2000 problems but these
are tied to forecasting. I'm looking at the first general
misconception, which starts:
"1. This is a problem that occurs only when/after the century rolls
over."
In glancing over GC28-1251-02, it seems to me that Jo Anne and C.s.y2k
has identified a problem that the big brains, even IBM, have missed.
My sense of this is, the deadline for finishing MIS-type systems is
December 1998.... about 3 months from now. Now, I'm not saying that
we'll have massive IT failures... but more than a few systems will get
slightly wacky.
Any-who, what's your stand on this? Did IBM call it? ....and if so,
where's the quote? Oh, and if IBM did call it, why do we, including
the big brains like de Jager, Fast Eddie Yardeni, Big Eddie Yourdon, all
still talk about having 477 days, we only have 112 days until the Jo
Anne Effect hits. Are they saying that it will be much milder than '00'
rollover?
cory hamasaki 477 days, 112 days until the Jo Anne Effect. 11,458 hours.
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 07:46:58, tim.oxler@NOSPAMteo-computer.com (Tim Oxler) wrote:
> tryagain@spammers (meandmyshadow) wrote:
>
> >Perhaps I am not reading the right posts but I have yet to detect
> >the presence of a single CPA or accountant in our midst.
> >
> >I would have thought they would be among the first to be introduced to
> >the Jo-Anne effect (really documented by IBM long ago(March1996).
> >See GC28-1251 The Year 2000 adn 2Digit Dates. A guide for .......
> >
> >Wonder what their take is on all this?
> >
> >
>
> Very simple reason. Y2k adds costs without adding value. It's a
> money loser. Accountants don't like to talk about these aspects.
>
> They also don't like spending money on money losers. Accountants are
> a strong source in Y2k "foot dragging".
>
> Only after the Jo Anne effect has happened, causing problems (and
> costing those head-in-the-sand accountants money), will they sit up
> and take notice.
>
>
> Tim Oxler
> TEO Computer Technologies Inc.
> teo-computer.com
> Take the Y2k Quiz
> teo-computer.com
|
