> Here's an updated chart for trend watchers:
> -------------------------
> Projected Y2K Costs for
> Federal Government ($)
> -------------------------
> Feb '97 2,300,000,000
> May '97 2,800,000,000
> Aug '97 3,800,000,000
> Nov '97 3,900,000,000
> Feb '98 4,700,000,000
> May '98 5,000,000,000
> Aug '98 5,400,000,000
> Feb '99 6,800,000,000
> -------------------------


-- a (a@a.a), March 19, 1999

Answers

a,

Thanks for that concise summary ... it's not quite as bad as the behavior of the Russian government, but it makes the point pretty clearly: in the space of two years, the estimated budget for Y2K has tripled. And, if you read the current OMB report, it also indicates that the numbers may continue to go higher during the remaining 287 days (not to mention the cost of coping with the post- 2000 bugs and problems).

Suppose a building contractor gave you an estimate of 3 months and $2,300 to add a new bedroom extension on the side of his house. Over the course of the next two months, he increases his cost estimate by a factor of three, so you're now being told that it will cost $6,900, if not more... Aside from being furious about the cost increase, wouldn't you also be a bit suspicious about the contractor's ability to estimate the schedule accurately? How confident would you be of his ability to finish the job at the end of the originally-quoted 3 month period?

This is what large-scale software projects are all about. And that's why I believe so firmly that Y2K is simply deja vu all over again.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), March 19, 1999.

And that's just to fix about 10% of the Federal Government's computers. I doesn't look like they'll be able to finish that 10% either.

-- (stat@man.com), March 19, 1999.

And don't forget that we the taxpayers will also be footing the bill for the federal bailout of D.C.'s systems. (As I recall, the Senate's new accounting system, which failed so miserably for at least several months after installation, came to a staggering $7MM. Can't imagine DC will be any more efficient in its repairs.) So that will be another source of increase in the federal budget.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), March 19, 1999.

a, What is the source of the statistics? Thanks, Jack

-- Jack Miller (practicaljack@practicaljack.com), March 19, 1999.

Here's the link:

Link to Stats

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), March 19, 1999.

Thanks Ray, Does anybody have the stats for the decreasing number of mission-critical systems during the same period? It would be a useful comparison. Jack

-- Jack Miller (practicaljack@practicaljack.com), March 19, 1999.

We must remember that the so called Federal "non-mission-critical" systems make up 80 - 90% of their inventory. Unless turned off and decoupled from the "mission-critical" systems, they will corrupt the supposedly Y2K-compliant systems.

-- Incredulous (ytt000@aol.com), March 19, 1999.

incred - Unless turned off and decoupled from the "mission-critical" systems, they will corrupt the supposedly Y2K-compliant systems.

How?

-- curious (donthaveone@thistimetoshare.com), March 20, 1999.

Curious,

A non-compliant system can corrupt a compliant one by feeding it bad data. I hope that this example illustrates my point:

A drug store chain upgrades its inventory control system to make it Y2K-compliant. It was an automated electronic interface from the medical wholesaler who supplys it. The wholesaler's system is not compliant. The wholesaler delivers medicine with an expiration date of June 1, 2000. The wholesaler then bills the drug store electronically. However because its system is not compliant, it sends the expiration date as June 1, 1900 to the drug store. The drug store rejects the medicine because it appears to be too old and returns it to the wholesaler.

I am sure that there are much better examples involving things like the huge international financial transactions that occur electronically every day.

-- Incredulous (ytt000@aol.com), March 20, 1999.