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: flatsville who wrote (8177)	8/20/1999 11:58:00 PM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

To the "lurker," (If it makes you feel better.) Yes, 25% (had date functionality) X 25% (of these were non-compliant) = 6.25%, not 5%. But, what's a percentage point or two between friends? At least this 6.25% number appears to be consistent in the processing industry sector based on the comment-- >>>...There was also agreement that this figure is typical of those reported at conferences and in private conversations. It was also noted that those reporting a 25% failure rate have evidence of a sufficient number of specific individual failures to explain that number...<<< Now go back and look at the manufacturing sector examples-- iee.org.uk >>>Manufacturing (G2.17.7) One manufacturing company operates 5 sites and employs 4000 people. The company has an assessment test procedure involving the following steps (a) determining the likelihood that the system has a real-time clock (b) using and obtaining information from manufacturers (c) availability of type information (d) if these have not produced confidence that the system will not have problems then the company undertakes detailed testing based on a test procedure it has devised internally (the procedure is applied to newly acquired equipment).. Work done so far may be represented as follows Number of systems thought to have a real-time clock 8000 Systems checked 5200 (66%) Of the systems which have been checked: 96.5% had no problem 1.2% were non-compliant but there were no significant consequences 2.3% were non-compliant and a fix was needed 0% had failures which would havoc had serious business impact Another report was based on investigation of "at-risk" systems. In this case there were (1) 85 business critical complex systems 21% of which had been tested; 25% of those tested were found to be non-compliant (2) 539 high-priority stand-alone systems 48% of which had been tested; 25% of those tested were found to be non-compliant (3) 1518 medium-priority stand-alone systems 5% of which had been tested; 8% of those tested were found to be non-compliant In general it appeared that in this company problems are more likely in larger and more complex systems.<<< If you can get a consistent/reliable percentage out of that mess, be my guest. But be careful. Notice in the last example above that the company only tested 21% of complex business systems and found 25% of those non-compliant, tested 48% of high-priority stand alone systems and found 25% of those non-compliant, and 5% of medium-priority stand alone systems and 8% of those non-compliant. I think you'll find these numbers harder to work with than the processing sector numbers which were as clear cut as it gets. Better yet, just call a company, pay a visit, walk through, and swallow whatever number they cough-up. A miss is as good as a mile apparently. Or better yet, just pick a number. 5%, 6.25% or whatever. (Sorry I didn't do the math for everyone on the earlier post. I thought it was obvious. Now it is.)