Less critical systems..Make it so..

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread


Now this is how to become compliant in a hurry.

Sen. Luger noted that as of May 14 last year the Department of Agriculture has fixed and tested 40% of its mission critical systems. By January 1999, the number of systems fixed was as 71%, however, the number of mission critical systems had been slashed by two-thirds, lowering the final total from 1,080 systems to 354, Luger said. Although the Office of Management and Budget had sent out new guidelines that were used to draw down the number of vital systems, Luger said he was concerned that an important system might be left off the list.

I queried the Secretary (Glickman) and he and I agreed its a source of considerable stress as to trying to figure out what is critical, said Luger. I am concerned that some systems being removed from the mission critical category might indeed be vital to the USDAs operations and might impair the departments ability to serve the nation. Luger added that while the number of essential systems had been trimmed by two-thirds, the cost of fixing the systems had risen by $40 million to $160 million.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), February 13, 1999


May 14, 1998: 40% X 1,080 = 432 systems fixed and tested.

January 1999: 71% X 354 = 251 systems fixed and tested.

SOMETHING is very wrong here...

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), February 13, 1999.

I guess they were busy fixing non-critical systems before they deceided to retire them. I've seen many other reports of the critical number going down big time. They're bound to miss some. How critical these missed systems are remains to be seen. This is the easiest way of all to do the Y2K fix for a system, determine it to be "non mission critical." <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 13, 1999.

I Agree... Perhaps some of the 'fixed and tested' were not mission critical in the newmission critical list. The original post doesn't say,"fixed and tested" for the January, 1999 list...only "fixed." Mistake, slip of the tongue, intentional distraction? I get tired of having to analyze the veracity of simple statements with an electron microscopic (looking for 'lawyerly' spin to numerical data).

Some clear, uncluttered facts with a chart, table, or graph would be a welcome relief from verbal or written statements...

-- PNG (png@gol.com), February 13, 1999.

>>May 14, 1998: 40% X 1,080 = 432 systems fixed and tested. January 1999: 71% X 354 = 251 systems fixed and tested.

SOMETHING is very wrong here... <<

I like this math! If the trend continues, by July 1999 there will be no such thing as a mission critical system, but all of them will be 100% fixed and tested! What a relief that is.

Excuse me while I go out and buy more batteries. :)

-- Margaret Janssen (janssm@aol.com), February 14, 1999.

Of course, a strong argument can be made that a distressingly large proportion of what the Federal Government does is not mission critical (except to some limited special interests), and that we'd be better off without most of it.

I've seen the serious suggestion made that we pass a law requiring that for every new agency we create, we should eliminate two old ones. The sheer scope of what the government does is mostly unnecessary for most of our lives, and a good deal of it trades long- term national disability in exchange for short-term satisfaction.

Does anyone draw a distinction between a system critical to maintain any particular function, and a determination as to whether that particular function is critical to the national well-being?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 14, 1999.

Declining numbers of Mission Critical Systems may be due to realizing that not all of the systems included in the original estimate are truly MCS.

By this I mean that everybody believes that what they do is important to the overall mission of an agency. "Hey, my stuff is critical too, put me on the list."

Once the realization of the scope of the problem sets in, tough choices are made about what a MCS really is. "Sorry Bob, your stuff we can live without for a while."

Just a thought.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), February 14, 1999.

Sorry, Bob. As a result, we won't be needing YOUR services any longer. <:(=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 14, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ