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: John Mansfield who wrote (2039)	6/24/1998 11:40:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 9818

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 04:03:51, Robert and Frances Egan <egan263@nospam_allowed.ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Thanks to Cory and Paul Leblanc for bringing this to my attention. It > has caused to significantly revise my position on the GAO audit. Bob, this is the kind of stuff that we denizens of the DC area have faced for years. I've mentioned my pal, Larry, who had a pretty good job (GS-15 top of grade) over in the DOD. He fought them for years, begging them to start work on Y2K. He finally got a chance to "early out" and took his buyout and ran for it. For those of you with MILNET access, you should be able to find the remnants of Larry's work by doing an Alta Vista search on +Larry, +Y2K, +Engineering. When they lost Larry, they lost a guy with S/370 assembler and both VM and MVS internals... I think he even did some VSE. A lot of my rambling and nattering comes about because I hear stuff from insiders like Larry or hear it on the radio or see it in the Washington Post or Washington Times, CSPAN. Unfortunately, much of this disaster is unquantifiable. How do you measure the loss of a guy with 20+ years in the DOD, mostly in IT in one agency, who fought for years to get them to work on Y2K but was reduced to attending meetings, sounded the alarm in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, got the dumb looks, the pats on the head, and then bailed out? That's why I'm disheartened about the progress of remediation around here. ...and I can't prove it. >http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/98147sum.htm> > I cannot have faith in any organization, public or private, which does > this poorly on an audit.> > > Cheers> Robert Egan> -- > To reply by email: remove nospam_allowed. cory hamasaki 555 days A 555 is an MSI TTL clock chip! Edwards: 4 Eastabrook: 3 x10.dejanews.com ____ 'Subject: Re: IG Slams DOD - Egan does about face! From: kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net (cory hamasaki)Date: 1998/06/24 Message-ID: <7kepWhCNP4qd-pn2-Njn8CuIHdsE4@localhost> Newsgroups: comp.software.year-2000[More Headers] [Subscribe to comp.software.year-2000]

To: John Mansfield who wrote (2039)	6/24/1998 11:41:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 9818

'Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General -- Audit Year 2000 Certification of Mission-Critical DoD Information Technology Systems -- Report No. 98-147 (PDF) Date: June 5, 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To obtain copies of Office of the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing Reports, contact the Secondary Reports Distribution Unit of the Analysis, Planning and Technical Support Directorate at (703) 604-8937 or FAX (703) 604-8932. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The audit objective was to determine whether the Y2K certification process is adequate to ensure that mission-critical DoD information technology systems will continue to operate properly after the year 2000. Specifically, the audit examined DoD management policy and guidance relevant to certifying information technology systems as Y2K compliant. The audit also evaluated the Y2K certification process of selected mission-critical DoD information technology systems as implemented by DoD Components. DoD Components are not complying with Y2K certification criteria before reporting systems as compliant. Of the 430 systems reported by DoD as Y2K compliant in November 1997, we estimate that DoD Components certified only 109 systems (25.3 percent) as Y2K compliant. As a result, DoD management reported as Y2K compliant systems that have not been certified. More importantly, mission-critical DoD information technology systems may unexpectedly fail because they were classified as Y2K compliant without adequate basis. The results are based on a randomly selected sample of 87 systems that DoD had reported as Y2K compliant. A signed Y2K compliance checklist was requested for each of the systems selected. dodig.osd.mil

To: John Mansfield who wrote (2039)	6/24/1998 11:51:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9818

UK: YEAR 2000 - URGENT ACTION NEEDED TO SAFEGUARD KEY PUBLIC SERVICES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are now less than 400 working days to the millennium, and the majority of local authorities and NHS trusts are behind schedule in tackling the year 2000 bug successfully, according to a report published today by the Audit Commission. Prompt action is needed if local government and NHS bodies are to be ready for the millennium. The year 2000 poses problems for all organisations using computers and other electronically-controlled equipment such as lifts, car park barriers, heating systems, video recorders and medical equipment. For the public sector, problems could result in the failure of key public services including communications with fire engines and ambulances, child protection registers, benefit payments and traffic lights. The Audit Commission is reviewing arrangements for tackling the year 2000 problem in local authorities, NHS trusts and other audited bodies. The Commission has established how much progress has been made and has issued guidance to help bodies get their year 2000 preparations on track. The main findings of the reviews, at 350 bodies up to March 1998, include:- Many local authorities and NHS year 2000 projects are behind schedule. Less than one third have documented their strategies for dealing with the problem, and over one third have still to identify the full extent of the problems within their organisations. It will not be possible to make all systems and equipment year 2000 compliant by the required deadline so it is important to focus on critical systems and equipment. Half of authorities and trusts have worked out their priorities. Progress in resolving problems with embedded systems is slower than for IT. The complexity of testing systems, particularly embedded systems, means that it is unlikely that authorities and trusts will complete testing by 31 December 1998, the target date set for NHS bodies. The final cost is still unknown and many authorities and trusts have yet to determine a budget for their year 2000 project. Authorities and trusts are meeting the cost of the year 2000 from existing resources. If all critical systems are to be ready on time, some will have to set aside more money. Some manufacturers have not yet provided assurances on information about compliance of their products, such as medical equipment. Skilled staff needed to tackle the problem are in high demand and short supply. Less than 10% of authorities and trusts have developed contingency plans to ensure the continuation of vital services if systems or utility supplies fail. Despite the range of problems posed by the Year 2000, these are not insurmountable but require considerable effort to resolve. Organisations or managers may be held legally liable for any injuries or losses caused by failures of systems. Authorities and trusts need to work together - and with their suppliers - to co-ordinate their efforts and share best practice and information. A Stitch In Time provides a self assessment questionnaire to assist senior managers measure the level of preparation within their organisations, and outlines seven key steps that organisations should take to prevent failure of key services and critical equipment. The government is asked to note the likely levels of funding for year 2000 projects, be alert to the consequences of legislation which has considerable implications for public sector IT within the next two years, and consider how emergency plans should incorporate the year 2000 dimension. The Audit Commission will regularly report on the progress authorities and trusts are making as the millennium approaches, and assist in the sharing of good practice advice and encourage closer co-operation. Andrew Foster, Controller of the Audit Commission, said: "The millennium bug is one of the most significant challenges currently facing organisations. Time is fast running out with less than 400 working days to take action. "All Chief Executives and Directors should check how far they have got against our report. There is time to tackle the bug but authorities and trusts have to focus on the issue today." Notes to Editors The Audit Commission for local authorities and the NHS in England and Wales is an independent body established under the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 and the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. Its duties are to appoint auditors to all local and health authorities and to help them bring about improvements in economy, efficiency and effectiveness directly through the audit process and through value for money studies. A Stitch In Time, Facing the Challenge of the Year 2000 Date Change (ISBN 1 86240 105 5) is available from Audit Commission Publications on freephone 0800 502030 priced œ15. (œ10 reduced price for NHS bodies and local authorities.) audit-commission.gov.uk