You said "I find it really doubtful that you're better informed than I am on the economic or
technology issues. (I am the Y2K director of a multi-billion dollar organization. I do find
you all kind of amusing, though.)"
So I assumed you know about IT and would answer specific questions,since you are posting on a public forum.
So I asked you: How many suppliers does your organization have?
How many of your suppliers are compliant?
Have you gone on site to verify compliancy or do you take their word for it?
Has your organization publicly claimed 100% compliant?or 100% ready?
Do you claim there is a difference between compliant and ready and if there is would
you explain please?
TIA
J.L.T.
You chose to ignore my questions and gave a partial answer to Flatsville.I thought your response to flatsville was reasonable certainly not of the flippant stuff that Cheeky bombards us with.I do wonder if my questions were too tuff for you or you just chose to blow me off personally.Either way many here I'm sure would like your view (As an IT hands on guy) on these questions presented on another thread
but certainly on topic here:
Ironically, the one reason I can find to be optimistic about Y2K is the widespread
deceit and/or hidden-ness about the overall reporting of it. This gives me a faint hope
that we are much further along in remediation than I expect and is why I personally still
give a BITR a 5% possibility (see a's thread). Against this lies the simplicity of
understanding Y2K from an IT historical point-of-view (remember, I'm speaking
broadly about global efforts, not about the efforts of various, specific entities):
1. Y2K budgets have steadily escalated (bad project sign).
2. Deadlines have shifted backward (bad project sign).
3. Testing is being deferred, reduced or scrapped for FOF (bad project sign).
4. Optimism when 75-90% code complete has been reached is taking hold (bad
project sign).
These bad signs historically lead to late projects. They are the one SURE statistical
metric within our industry! Alas.
Against these facts, it doesn't matter whether every media outlet in the world
SINCERELY publishes "good news" reports of "progress" (progress is always being
made in software). It doesn't matter how huge the disconnect is between public
expectations of a "bump" and what will "really happen". The public can expect whatever
it likes, it doesn't affect what will happen. Likewise, the markets. Likewise, CEOs (IT
pros know how little they understand about their own systems).
All that matters is understanding how it could be (could it?) that these historical
predictors won't come to pass this time.
The only argument I have ever read that is partly credible is the very one which ensures
that Y2K impacts are going to amaze the world: the date is inflexible so everyone must
and will finish.
While this represents a strong wish, software history also indicates that it is literally
impossible to finish projects behind schedule by throwing more resources at them and,
generally, it makes projects even later than they would have been.
As an intuitive rule of thumb, IT pros know this is why stated completion dates of Nov.
and Dec, 1999 cause us dread. Except in the rare instances where the completion date
is really September (and the geeks simply "told" mgmt it would be December), this
really means that the GEEKS have said December .... and that means trouble.
The inflexible date on top of the predictive markers that are in place as of July 15, 1999
is extremely ominous.
Adding
5. The unpredictable impact of embedded systems
... into the stew is that much more ominous. Chillingly so, since there are bound to be
strange impacts, even if the percentage of bad systems is as low as hoped.
Now, if it is all so simple, why has the IT press not picked up on this and made a huge
stink?
a) Outsiders cannot imagine how boring maintenance programming is, in general, and
Y2K is, in specific, to the tech press. Yesterday's systems, yesterday's languages,
yesterday's news.
b) Related to a), just as very few computing entities have ever applied the lessons of the
historical programming markers I cited above, likewise, IT journalists haven't either.
Saying "why" would take a book and many books have been written. Outsiders simply
have to take on trust that something about this profession profoundly resists the simplest
possible measurements of "real" productivity and project progress.
c) The IT tech press, even more than the mainstream, ordinary press, is a creature of
products and services ("advertisers"). Investigative reporting is mainly non-existent. Not
minimal. Nonexistent. Everything is future-oriented (reviewing products and the "next
cool thing"). Also, without putting too fine a point on it, and there are exceptions, most
IT journalists are not themselves very technical.
To repeat and also conclude, this is the most important thing:
"Good news" at this stage is not trustworthy when coupled to the facts I state at top.
These facts, admitting numerous specific exceptions, cannot be denied (if you think they
can be, give it a shot). No doubt, some of the good news is authentic (SSA, having
spent 10 years on this, can be taken as good news; some others as well). I only state
that the news, broadly, is not trustworthy, since we are in the "optimistic phase" (itself a
BAD, not a GOOD sign). I hardly need to point out that even the good news is usually
accompanied by bad news anyway.
Y2K (as Cory never tires of pointing out) is not a poll-driven or "feel good" process.
The projects are either being completed successfully or they are not. IT history and
metrics says THEY ARE NOT. That is a deduction, but a very safe one. Unfortunately.
We can have good news right through December and still have Infomagic. Or a bump,
yes, it is possible.
Contra the usual assumptions, I would be delighted to be shown the error of my ways.
But it has to be by serious IT software professionals, not by the usual bozos.
Your comments please
J.L.T. |
