Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tcd who wrote (6796)	7/20/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: C.K. Houston	Respond to of 9818

tcd, <what this board needs is genuine information from IT/IS professionals:> Message 10574068 Hate to burst your bubble on this one ... but the person you're referring to is not an IT/IS professional. I know him [since 1996 - we used to occasionally chat by phone back then - not now]. He has no IT/IS background. Though, admittedly, that is now one of his job responsibilities. He's in regional management with a government agency. The "huge organization" he's referring to is the U.S. Post Office. Granted, about a year ago, coordinating Y2K activities became one of his responsibilities [among others]. But, this does not make him a "IT/IS professional" IMHO. He did make some very good points in his post though. Most of which I agree with. Particularly this point: <Nearly every company I have been in contact with indicate that Y2K is NOT an IS/IT problem but a mgmt problem or a business problem.> Here's where he and I disagree [and always have - we've sparred a lot]: <Most close to the situation feel there will be some things that were overlooked and by that nature will be small or inconsequencial. These are expected to be inconveniences not earth shattering problems.> Here's why ... ===================================================== Karla W. Corcoran - Inspector General United States Postal Service house.gov February '99 "Y2K status reporting was not always accurate. . . ." "We issued our most recent Y2K report this month [February 1999]. This report addressed the quality and reliability of Y2K information reported by the Postal Service. We found that briefings to senior management and Y2K reports designed for internal and external use were not always complete, consistent, or clear." "We also found that the briefings to senior management did not include a standard report on the overall status of Y2K progress and were not provided at regularly scheduled intervals. As a result, senior managers did not always have the information they needed to monitor Y2K progress. Because senior managers did not have this information, they lost time-critical opportunities to make important resource and budget decisions. . . ." "For headquarters' suppliers, in January 1999, the Postal Service had identified 661 critical suppliers and inquired as to their Y2K readiness. Of these, 312 - nearly half - did not respond to inquiries, so the Postal Service did not know their Y2K status. Of the 349 that replied, the Postal Service determined that 254 are at high risk of not being Y2K ready and 95 suppliers will be ready. Generally, the Postal Service has not developed contingency plans to address how it will move the mail if these external suppliers are not ready for the year 2000." "For field suppliers, the Postal Service also identified more than 7,200 critical suppliers that still needed to be assessed for Y2K readiness. Because so much work remains to be done in assessing the readiness of suppliers, the Postal Service faces a significant challenge in developing contingency plans for those critical suppliers that will not be ready." "Mail Processing Equipment: The Postal Service relies extensively on mail processing equipment to sort and process millions of pieces of mail daily. The Postal Service has identified 43 types of equipment that are critical to movement of the mail. These include nationally managed equipment, such as delivery bar code sorters, advanced facer cancellers, flat sorting machines, and large parcel sorting systems. The 43 types of equipment represent thousands of pieces throughout the country. The Postal Service has reported that Y2K solutions have been developed, or are already in place, for 39 of the 43 types of equipment." "The best assurance that systems will work in the year 2000 is to test them in advance. However, Postal management initially elected to test mail processing equipment at only 3 out of more than 350 sites ..." From Jack Brock, Director - Government & Defense Information Systems "The U.S. Postal Service does not yet have complete inventory and status information on its information technology infrastructure, internal and external interfaces, and field equipment and systems." [This was February - 5 months ago. I imagine inventory has been completed by now though.] house.gov ======================================================== When this info first came out, he and I debated on another thread about this. We obviously have differences in opinion on U.S. Postal Service readiness. I posted the House Testimony. He posted the Post Office general Y2K link for the public. The link for the general public was/is very optimistic. House testimony had a completely different tone. Here's the U.S. Postal Service Site: usps.gov They say [at this site] that written contingency plans will be developed 3-6 months prior to first anticipated failure date.] <Most close to the situation feel there will be some things that were overlooked and by that nature will be small or inconsequencial. These are expected to be inconveniences not earth shattering problems.> He basically said the same thing back in February - before inventory was completed. His opinion hasn't changed. Neither has mine. Cheryl 164 Days until 2000

To: tcd who wrote (6796)	7/20/1999 12:39:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Respond to of 9818

It has good people right now: Ratcliffe ratcliffe.com ratcliffe.com ratcliffe.com DeJager year2000.com DeJager has changed his stance on Y too Kay in the last year. Good article: year2000.com

To: tcd who wrote (6796)	7/21/1999 6:34:00 AM
From: Bald Eagle	Respond to of 9818

<<what this board needs is genuine information from IT/IS professionals:>> Well, I fall in that category (over 20 years, so I'm a bit of a dinosaur in the IT industry ). I know that Y2K awareness is very high where I work ( a large oil company, soon to be part of the largest company in the world). Supposedly, the system I work with (mostly UNIX based) is now fully Y2K compliant. I admit that I really have no idea what problems may crop up early next year or at other "crucial" dates in other areas. I have also worked at the local electric utility company fairly recently and they are supposedly fully Y2K compliant. Really, I don't have too much concern about large private businesses being operational next year, but I really doubt that the government agencies will be "business as usual" next year. JMHO