Money spent as an indicator of time to compliancegreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
One of Gary's main arguments that we won't collectively finish in time is that so much of the remediation budget has been left to be spent in 1999. I recall a recent article by one company that explained this away by stating that it will be investing in substantial equipment (and/or software) in 1999 to complete its fixes, and that is why its 1999 budget is so top-heavy. My question is: Does anyone have a sense as to what extent all of this replacement hardware/software (let alone contingency items like generators)is going to be available this year? Do you think companies are forecasting completion dates based on firm scheduling of delivery of that equipment/software? With that much software being installed or upgraded within such a short period of time, will technical support staff at the manufacturers be able to handle enough inquiries to get these systems functioning in time? Seems to me Supply & Demand says that just because a company may have identified a solution, doesn't mean it is available in time, given the amount of work left to be done. (Same reason that so many of us are taking care of our personal preparations right now.)
-- Brooks (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 06, 1999
Our College is constantly getting new machines. We don't seem to have a supply problem, I think the PC shortages are being filled with 2nd and 3rd world PC supply(they havn't started yet so we are probably getting their surplus). Once they catch on about July of 99 then all hell should break loose. doneitalllou
-- doneitalllouie (email@example.com), January 06, 1999.
Rick Cowles touches on this subject as it relates to the electric utility industry in the interview he gave to Drew Parkhill (CBN):
The interview is long but well worth reading.
-- Arnie Rimmer (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 06, 1999.
There's an obvious problem in that since the scale of the problem is largely unknown when the budget is set, the budget may be too small or too large.
In general budgets are too small, which would imply that it's worse than expenditure so far would suggest. However, it's at least possible that this is a special case and has in fact been over- budgeted.
in short, yet another weak indicator that may or may not mean anything. NOBODY KNOWS!
-- Nigel Arnot (email@example.com), January 06, 1999.
One interesting aspect of this line of thought is that SAP (the large European software company that sells compliant enterprise wide systems to Fortune 500 type companies)reported terrible revenue numbers for their latest QTR and their stock tanked. If they aren't selling systems then who is?
-- steve p. (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 06, 1999.
Regarding SAP, my take on it is that many companies have postponed SAP implementations to deal with Y2k.
Even with their ASAP methodologies, it would be extremely risky for companies to begin SAP implementations at this point in time as a Y2k solution. Most companies began far earlier with SAP implementations.
-- (AG@BFI.com), January 06, 1999.
And many are STILL trying to get the !@#$%^ system to work correctly. And one company just gave up after three separate projects (and many $$$) attempting to deploy SAP.
It takes minumum 18 months and more like 2 years to get an SAP implementation planned, prepped, in, and stable. Anyone looking at it now as some sort of "fix" for Y2K is just plain foolish.
Hence the drop in SAP's revenues; don't expect them to recover until after 1Q2000 (if then.)
-- Mac (email@example.com), January 06, 1999.
With clients who have made a nice carreer of SAP instalations (as third party vendors, yet), you have understated the complexity nicely, from what I hear. This is speaking in general, of course.
-- Chuck, night driver (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 1999.
A related question, for you accountants out there, is the question of deferring the expenses associated with remediation until a future period for recognition. If such deferrals were permitted, it might in part explain why so little of the remediation budget has been spent to date and remains to be spent in 99. To put it more simply, the work might be getting done on schedule, but the expense has not shown up in the 10-Q's...yet. Or maybe not. Anybody know about this?
-- Jeff DeVore (email@example.com), January 07, 1999.
Jeff, I don't think that is the case for federally budgeted expenditures, or government contractors. It is a "use it, or lose it" proposition. Or at least that has been my experience.
-- MVI (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 1999.