even the federal government's "positive" numbers show they're behindgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
As most of you know, the federal government doesn't speak with one voice on it's Y2K preparations. You have Bennett's committee, Koskinen's group, OMB, GAO, Horn. Generally Koskinen & the OMB are more optimistic. I posted this earlier tonight; it's an example of the different takes on Y2K (keeping in mind that just a few days ago, someone from the GAO, I think it was, said the federal gov't still had a "daunting" task ahead of it). It also shows that even by the optimistic numbers, Washington is behind its stated goals from last year...
Comptroller General: We Don't Know How Ready The US Is; We Need Contingency Plans; Numbers Show Government Behind Schedule
It's a common theme in Y2K circles: no one has good information. Now, even the top federal auditor says the same thing:
**Federal officials can't say how disruptive life on Jan. 1 will be because they lack a comprehensive picture of U.S. readiness for the year 2000, said the chief government auditor this week.
**And costs to make federal computers ready may mount, said David Walker, comptroller general of the United States.
**"One weak link anywhere in the chain of critical dependencies can cause a cascading effect of major shutdowns of business operations," Walker said. Consequently, it is imperative to develop contingency plans.
The story goes on to point out that federal Y2K costs are still rising, and that contingency plans can add to those costs. In addition, the story points out that testing can take up to 70 percent of a Y2K project- which certainly leaves as debatable the government's plan to finish its testing between March 31 and October 1.
Another important point:
**By the March 31 deadline, 80 percent of the critical systems should be ready, said John Koskinen, chairman of the president's council on year 2000 conversion.
However, on July 28, 1998, at the National Press Club, Koskinen said "virtually all" of the federal government's mission critical systems would be ready. Back then, the number of those systems was at least 7,336. Now, it is down to 6,696- a reduction of some 8.7 percent. And yet, only 80 percent (somewhat less than "virtually all") of those reduced number of systems will be ready (and that assumes that 80 percent actually will be ready, as that would be a big jump over the recently-reported percentage of 61 percentage).
The point of all this, regardless of whether 80 percent, 75 percent, or whatever percent, of systems are ready by March 31, it will apparently be less than what Washington had wanted- another indication that the federal government is indeed behind schedule.
-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (email@example.com), January 23, 1999
And how many of those "almost compliant" systems will fall prey to the well documented, last minute "oops" that software repairs, projects, etc., are so prone to?
-- Jon Williamson (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 20, 1999.
First the government missed its September 30, 1998 deadline...
...and now its going to miss the March 31, 1999 deadline.
-- Kevin (email@example.com), February 20, 1999.