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 : Year 2000 (Y2K) Embedded Systems & Infrastructure Problem -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Mansfield who wrote (188)	3/8/1998 4:43:00 AM
From: R. Bond	Respond to of 618

John, You should start a website, man. You have a serious collection of data! Can it be that I actually have an article from the U.K. press which you have not yet posted? Here it is. >>The departments' plans show the Highways Agency has raised its estimate from œ4.3m to œ14.3m after taking into account elements such as microchips in traffic control systems. << Cheers, Bond ----------------------- Rising costs: Computer bomb may cost UK government œ393m WEDNESDAY MARCH 4 1998 --------------------------------------------------------- By Alan Cane --------------------------------------------------------- The projected cost of defusing the millennium "bomb" in central government has risen 6 per cent to œ393m since November with some agencies reporting three fold increases in their original estimates, departmental reports published yesterday reveal. With just 21 months until the turn of the century,however, the reports show only about œ25m has been spentand some departments are still revising their estimates. The Employment Service, for example, which planned to spend œ23.1m says: "The position at present is very fluid as new areas of consideration require impact analysis and an assessment of resourcing requirements . . . At present, œ23m is as accurate an estimate as possible." Computer experts said yesterday the small spend to date indicated the departments had yet to come to grips with the extent of the problem. David Clark, public services minister witha responsibility for the "bomb" said, however, that departments were making good progress: "By opening the books for all to see, I am setting an example to others to take this issue seriously. I remain concerned about slippage in the compliance plans of some departments." The "bomb" is a result of software techniques that render most computers incapable of distinguishing between centuries. The consequences are not fully understood but there are fears that, uncorrected, government computers could fail to pay pensions on time or calculate civil servants' salaries correctly. The departments' plans show the Highways Agency has raised its estimate from œ4.3m to œ14.3m after taking into account elements such as microchips in traffic control systems. The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency raised its estimate from œ47,000 to œ333,220 while the Home Office now expects to spend œ20m rather than œ17.5m. Top of the list of spenders is the Ministry of Defence, which expects to spend œ200m while the Inland Revenue is anticipating œ26m. The Department of Social Security expects to spend œ45.6m and claims its major systems will be "millennium compliant" by the end of August this year with its remaining systems in order 12 months later. According to the reports, 81 per cent of departments expect to complete the work by March 1999. There have been concerns that the departments are inadequately financed and resourced to tackle the problem rigorously, but most seem confident they have the staff and the funds to complete the project. Ian Hugo, a consultant to Taskforce 2000 established by the previous government to raise awareness of the "bomb", said experience showed estimates of the cost tended to rise between threefold and sixfold 12 months into a big computer project. c Copyright the Financial Times Limited 1998