This is from the guys that started it all. <:)=

I.B.M.

IBM is encouraging customers to sharpen their focus on Year 2000 testing and to accelerate their plans.

Major information technology consultants agree. Year 2000 testing will take 40 to 60 percent of the total Year 2000 transition effort. Yet customers are leaving far less time and resource to adequately test the readiness of their systems. And many small businesses are unaware of the need to test at all.

Customers must test not only remediated applications and new packaged applications, but also the interaction between applications and the supply chain. If they do not, they run the risk of IT system failure when the century turns.

Year 2000 testing is NOT accomplished merely by trying several dates after Jan. 1, 2000 in major applications. Testing is NOT accomplished by obtaining the assurance of hardware, system software and application software providers that their offers are "Year 2000 ready."

While they are critical steps, these items are components of a comprehensive Year 2000 test plan which should also include infrastructure tests, testing non-IT assets and supply chain testing outside the enterprise.

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 26, 1999

Answers

Seems a bit late in the day for encouraging and nudging.

-- Anon (anon@zzz.com), February 27, 1999.

Link didn't work for me.

-- Steve Hartsman (hartsman@ticon.net), February 27, 1999.

Steve;

Try:

http://www.ibm.com/ibm/year2000/testing/focus.html

P.S. Thank you for your work on the Pwr Point presentation. That was outstanding.

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (buffgun@hotmail.com), February 27, 1999.

Sorry, Link error my fault, copied too much!

Good link?

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 27, 1999.

Oh no, not THAT again. One more try...

Link, PLEASE!

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 27, 1999.

I was unimpressed with the head of IT when I met him some time ago. With what I've heard through the hospital about the typical Y2K fix, I'm even more unimpressed now. Sigh. Testing?? What's that? Just ask the manufacturer if it'll work...

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), February 27, 1999.

Sysman:

Good post - but Ole Blue's recommendation coming at this time probably makes us both snicker a little.

Hell, most people do not KNOW ANYTHING about developing comprehensive test criteria. We worked on developing Y2K test criteria for seven months before we got it mostly right (we hope). And you know the problems that crop up during testing (that's we we test, right?) will take time to fix, also.

Some vexing questions that haunt us fixers: - Was my test data entered correctly? - Am I using the right generation of the master file? Trans file? - For mainframes, did datager pick up my JCL submission correctly? - Did I make a mistake in the JCL that runs the test bed? - Was Expeditor REALLY telling me that I have a bad offset in the index, or is there a bug in expeditor? (there is a bug, by the way). - Did I have a bug in the programs that generate print-outs from the test bed? - And on and on.

Maybe corps will start hiring after their FOF blows up in their face - what do you think?

Mike Cumbie

-- Michael H. Cumbie (Mikecumbie@aol.com), February 27, 1999.

Hi again Mike. You bring up some interesting points. Good testing ain't easy. I think the 40-60% is correct. Lost to consider to make sure it's OK. The one point I think important in this is that you just can't take a vendor's word that their program is Y2K OK. Even if it is, you've got to take a close look at your data feeding that program. One thing I like about VM, you can bring up a "test machine" in any environment (date) and not impact production systems. Too bad not many MVS (OS/390) shops are running VM. Good that blue is pushing testing though, even if a little late. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 28, 1999.