To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (376 ) 3/31/1999 4:09:00 PM From: Albert Youssef Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1274
I don't know if it's a change in company ethics; rather I think it's a result of the company's change in fortunes. It's easy to look good when your business is booming. Heck, you can even be generous and point out potential pitfalls in advance if you're so confident that they won't threaten your growth. Then you're viewed as "above-board" and "ethical" and "investor-friendly", etc... Much harder to do this when you're faltering. And I don't know that I've ever seen the management of a Wall St. darling gracefully forecast the end of a many-years-long run before it was already painfully obvious. Heck, for all I know, maybe when the decline comes, mgmt is so conditioned by past successes that they don't accept it for what it is until too late. "It's just a blip," they say, half-believing themselves. So I'm not surprised it's the same management. In fact, in retrospect, their actions the past several months have been all to predictable. As for recovery, I don't know how much of the slowing is a result of market saturation and how much is Y2K. But at the company I work for, Y2K has definitely been taking center stage of late, while major new systems implementations have definitely taken a back seat. Interestingly enough, I think that the final quarter of the year may be a time when people start to look at new development again, in the lull between the completion of Y2K testing and the actual occurrence of 1/1/00 (oops, that wasn't Y2K compliant). Also, my company is freezing all discretionary releases of code into production so there won't be much happening there either.