To: LTK007 who wrote (6644 ) 7/6/1998 8:14:00 AM From: Tx Buck Respond to of 29382
I regard to your point about large vs small Y2K firms and responsibility. I spent a few months last year trying to get bids on farming out assembler language conversion (to COBOL) and Y2K conversions. Old language versions often are not compatible for conversion and must be upgraded. Since assembler programmers are a passing generation, even in the government, the conversion to COBOL is necessary. At that time the lead was about 3 months. Now it is up to 6 months before a company can get to new work and it costs twice as much. The small firms to which we provided sample programs sent us back some really horrific code. Bottom line for them, the programming worked. Bottom line for us, our programmers have to maintain the code after these companies leave. We ended up settling with a fairly large company which was working with another of our center's conversions and the firm assured us that there would be few problems. Famous last words. The sister center is nearly a year behind in completion and our project, only six months old, has now slipped three months. My first point is that there is so much work out there that all the companies, large and small, will be raking in cash. Second, there is so much work out there that many firms are biting off more than they can ever chew, assuming they can hire the necessary temporary staff and get them on-line within a short period (wrong and wrong). It's an old programming adage that development programmer is the glamor work but it's also the easiest type to program. Maintenance programming, which is what conversion and Y2K are, often is assigned to the better, more experienced programmers. They are forced to work within given frameworks to resolve sticky problems and, since these programs are often required for immediate production and operations, do not have the luxury of time, cost overruns, new development, and pie-in-the-sky solutions. Many of these Y2K companies are finding out how difficult maintenance truly is. This brings me to my third, and last, point. Responsibility often becomes synonymous with culpability. As the Y2K problem becomes larger and companies realize the overload that they have assumed, there is going to be a lot of backing off from final solutions. That is to say, firms might be happy to consult but, as time becomes critical, the customers will be left to do the final repair work themselves. Y2K Companies do not want to be the scapegoat when their systems work begin to fail (not to say that all is doom and gloom... it's simply inevitable that not all coding will work as intended). There was a small article just last week in the WSJ which brings this fact to the front. Can you say law suit?