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 (3018)	12/23/1998 4:47:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 9818

'Energy companies seem far behind on year 2000 By William Ulrich 12/14/98 If you hoped that recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-Q filings would demonstrate major year 2000 progress at large companies, you're likely to be disappointed.Preliminary findings from a Triaxsys Research study show that Fortune 500 companies have spent, on average, 30% to 35% of their total year 2000 budgets as of October. That study highlights the fact that companies have made little progress since the second quarter of this year, when those same companies had consumed, on average, 25% of their year 2000 budgets. The SEC's disclosure requirements obligate large, publicly traded companies to report year 2000 spending to date, projected spending for the remainder of the project and the status of remediation and contingency planning efforts. For some, that has been a chance to demonstrate real progress. For many others, their SEC disclosures reveal that they have a long way to go to nullify year 2000 risks. No single industry is immune to project delays, but our overwhelming reliance on power and energy magnifies the severity of the situation. For example, Entergy Corp., a Southern power company, claims to have spent $15 million -- less than 19% -- of its $81 million year 2000 budget. Entergy's disclosure further states that "malfunctions could disrupt operations of nuclear or fossil generating plants, operation of transmission and distribution systems, access to interconnections with neighboring utilities, and cause other operational problems." PG&E Corp., a California-based utility, spent $80 million -- or 31% -- of its $260 million year 2000 budget. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. in New York state spent $5 million of its $40 million budget -- or 12% -- during that same time. And much of the difficult work still lies ahead, with just a year left. Energy companies, which fuel numerous power plants, are also behind schedule. Chevron Corp. spent less than 16% of its $250 million year 2000 budget as of September. The oil and gas company's 10-Q filing also stated that "interruptions could prevent the company from being able to manufacture and deliver refined products and chemicals products to customers. The company could also face interruptions in its ability to produce crude oil and natural gas." The Exxon/Mobil conglomerate plans to spend $753 million to fix the problem. As of September, its two constituent companies collectively had spent $373 million -- less than half -- of their total year 2000 budget. There are two ways to view those findings. One view assumes that, as a few companies have claimed, project teams are outperforming initial budget projections. In those cases, we're being told that companies don't need all of the money that they have set aside. If that's the case, I strongly encourage management to articulate why and how that came about in future filings. Another way to view that data is to accept it at face value. That's the more likely scenario given that a 1998 Cap Gemini Group survey claimed that upward of 80% of IT managers underestimated year 2000 spending requirements. Furthermore, IT projects traditionally run over, not under, budget. It's unlikely that all those projects are an exception to that decades-old industry norm. With other sources indicating that remediation efforts are missing the mark on many systems and that contingency teams are still mobilizing, it's hard to be optimistic about the power and energy industries right now. Ulrich is president of Tactical Strategy Group Inc. and executive vice president of Triaxsys Research LLP He is co-author of The Year 2000 Software Crisis: Challenge of the Century and The Year 2000 Software Crisis: The Continuing Challenge. His E-mail address is tsginc@cruzio.com. computerworld.com

To: John Mansfield who wrote (3018)	12/23/1998 5:08:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

'99 days to go -- for NYS, Canada, Japan, India asked in the TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Q&A Forum The calendar count-down on my web site has reminded me that we now have 99 days to go before the 1 Apr 1999 FY rollover for NY State, Japan, Canada, and India. With that in mind, it's interesting to take a look at the status of New York's "top 40" state computer systems, which are listed at I recall reading somewhere that any new systems to be installed for the beginning of NY State's fiscal year actually have to be available by Feb 28th, since the process of de-installing old systems and installing new systems is a 30 day process. If that's true, then NY State has approx 69 days. It kinda reminds me of the old college drinking song, "99 bottles of beer on the wall..." Ed -- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), December 22, 1998 greenspun.com