'Why isn't Y2K the #1 IT priority today?
asked in the TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Q&A Forum
As I learn more about this issue, it astonishes me that there is so
little relative effort going on. Having worked for a large system
integration firm for over seven years, I see that new system
development has not given way to Y2K preparation even at this
late date. If anything, new technologies and systems are hotter than
ever, especially with the Internet, Java and so on. I have a few
questions on this subject:
(1) Are other IT professionals making the same observations in
their companies?
(2) Are others of you also astounded that priorities have not been
dramatically shifted to reduce risk and preserve continuity through
Y2K?
(3) What are some psychological explanations for this
phenomenon, which may help in breaking through? For instance,
the "if I don't look it isn't there" approach, or the "somebody else is
taking care of it" approach. What are other viewpoints,
rationalizations you see?
Asked by Jeff Mantei (manteij@hotmail.com) on July 21, 1998.
Answers
A lot of it comes down to procrastination. In 1999, you will see a
lot more companies getting serious about this, and hopefully as the
year goes by the gloom and doomers will have less and less to be
gloomy about. The other thing I see is that companies don't want to
depress their earnings and scare away stockholders by throwing
money at this invisible problem, although I agree that existing
resources could be diverted rather than hiring new ones. This will
happen in 1999. Another thing I see happening is that utilities will
complete their Year 2000 testing, like the President asked them to.
They will be surprised by the number of non-compliant systems
they have. They will complain that they can't afford to replace them
and ask Congress to bail them out. Congress will have no choice,
especially since the "Let's all pull together as a team" speech.
Answered by Amy Leone (aleone@amp.com) on July 21, 1998.
Amy,
Why do you believe that those companies which have
procrastinated until 1999 will be able to do fix their systems in less
than 12 months?
Answered by Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com) on July 21, 1998.
I didn't say I believed it, I said they believed it. It should be an
interesting year, no doubt about it. I just don't think you are going
to see a lot of action this year. Another problem is that
programmers are considered support staff, and only so much
money is allocated to that. This is a big budget surprise and
requires priority shifting at the highest levels. Change is slow.
Things will pick up next year.
Answered by Amy Leone (aleone@amp.com) on July 21, 1998.
Also, there are custom software packages out there for banks,
insurance cos., etc. I know that CSC (Computer Sciences Corp)
offers a number of these, because I am a stockholder and I read
their annual report. In other words, they don't have to remediate
their home-grown software. They can go out and buy a
one-size-fits-all package, just like you can go out and buy
Quicken. I expect they'll try to remediate within a certain budget
for the first half of 99. When that fails, they'll buy the ready-made
stuff. The only sector that can't do that is the government.
Answered by Amy Leone (aleone@amp.com) on July 21, 1998.
Amy,
I am very familiar with the custom packages for banks, because I
work for a federal banking regulator and regularly examine data
centers and their systems. Implementing a new custom software
package, regardless of whether it is Y2K-compliant, is not a quick
and painless process. Many banks which use these "turnkey"
software systems have little in-house expertise and depend heavily
on the vendor for technical support. Should even a relatively
moderate number of banks decide they need to switch software
packages in 1999, the vendors will be overwhelmed. Additionally,
many external data servicers are no longer accepting any new
customers until after 2000. Banks which think they can find a nice
easy fix for a Y2K problem in 1999 are most likely engaging in
wishful thinking. By then, it's going to be too late for most who
don't have systems which are or will be compliant by 1/1/00.
Answered by Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com) on July 21, 1998.
Well, once the banks realize this they will have to put themselves
on the market, where they will be absorbed by banks that are
prepared. The strong will eat the weak in the marketplace like they
always do. My concerns are in the areas of government, utilities,
and embedded systems. The federal government received a failing
mid-term grade. If I received a failing grade, I would ask what my
areas of weakness were and how I could improve. The
administration responded by saying that they were graded to
harshly. A juvenile response not likely to lead to success.
Answered by Amy Leone (aleone@amp.com) on July 21, 1998.
I just had another thought (which of course I had to share) - is it
possible that companies are playing chicken with their
programmers? In other words, the programmers are saying "If you
don't fix this you'll go out of business" and the management is
thinking "If we go out of business then you won't have a job now
will you?". Is management thinking that programmers are going to
take the lead on this?
Answered by Amy Leone (aleone@amp.com) on July 21, 1998.
Jeff asked:
"What are some psychological explanations for this phenomenon,
which may help in breaking through? For instance, the "if I don't
look it isn't there" approach, or the somebody else is taking care of
it" approach."
Jeff, the explanations for denial and inaction are complex and vary
from individual to individual, and from situation to situation. When
we're dealing with family members and friends, we can still afford
to soft pedal a bit, to keep gradually, gently pouring on the facts
until they begin to see. But when we're dealing with
decision-makers, those who are earning the big bucks to steer their
organizations, total, ruthless confrontation with the facts absolutely
must be the rule. The force-field of disinformation and denial
surrounding the typical executive is so powerful that only the
sharpest, most pointed projection of cold facts has a chance to
penetrate it.
In his "Blind Man's Bluff" essay, Gary North cites this interesting
study from Davidson and Rees-Mogg's THE SOVEREIGN
INDIVIDUAL:
"A recent psychological study disguised as a public opinion poll
showed that members of individual occupational groups were
almost uniformly unwilling to accept any conclusion that implied a
loss of income for them, no matter how airtight the logic supporting
it. Given increased specialization, most of the interpretive
information about most specialized occupational groups is designed
to cater to the interests of the groups themselves. They have little
interest in views that might be impolite, unprofitable, or politically
incorrect (p. 339)."
When the Wall Street Journal publishes an op-ed piece telling
executives the problem is no big deal, everybody else is quickly
fixing it, and those who are talking about its dangers are hucksters
trying to make a buck, you have your work cut out for you if
you're trying to tell them otherwise.
They have little interest in what you have to say. They certainly
don't want you to be impolite or politically incorrect in saying it.
But maybe that's exactly what you need be. Maybe you need to
tell them in explicit, no-holds-barred terms what's going to happen
to their companies, and their jobs, and their cushy retirement plans
if they continue to ignore the situation. Maybe you need to point
out that real people whose faces they see everyday are going to be
out in the street wondering how to feed their children because they
and the fellows at the club can't see the forest for the trees.
They don't understand how computer systems work. Most of them
depend on secretaries to print out their email so they can read it,
for heaven's sake! But they understand that they need their data
feeds to function. They understand that if they can't send out
invoices they're in deep doodoo. They grasp that they need to be
able to exchange valid information with customers and vendors.
You need to paint a graphic picture for them of effects and then
remind them it won't be your butt that's sued if they fail.
I don't know. More and more I find myself seeing the point of the
unnamed armed forces deputy chief of staff whose remarks were
quoted at duh-2000.com in their last contest (The
monthly contest for the stupidest thing said about the Year 2000
problem):
".all I can do is persist, persist and persist. I can educate them. I
can advertise our successes. Then, if they don't get it, we'll just
have to shoot them."
Faith
Answered by Faith Weaver (faith-weaver@usa.net) on July 21, 1998.
...
greenspun.com |
