Y2k now a management issue, not a technical issue....what does this mean?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Koskinen has made this statement. I don't know what it means. If the problem is still in the computers, it would be technical. If it is a matter of organizing how to resolve the problem, it would be management. I don't undestand. Someone explain.
-- Linda A. (email@example.com), March 22, 1999
By "management" vs "technical", Mr. Koskinen is admitting that the problem is not going to be fixed in time using hardware or software patches (IMHO). Now the government must work on damage control (as if the Federales will have much control over anything).
Finger pointing will come next. That has already started here in California.
Have fun reading between the lines! :)
-- Margaret (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 22, 1999.
Margaret, good assessment.
Also to be noted, it is governments way shifting focus. This creates confusion, and people get tired of trying to decipher what the problem is. Most folks wander away befuddled, hoping government knows what they're doing, and not knowing what causes the problem in the end.
***recognizing the "Baffle'em with BullSh** tactic"***
-- Mr. Kennedy (email@example.com), March 22, 1999.
"evenin' Mr. K. ;)
Yep, haven't dazzeled 'em, so...
Speaking of BS, this is the management issue: How high to make the boots! <:)=
-- Sysman (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 22, 1999.
Even two years ago, csy2k had conceded that this has always been a management issue. First to save costs, then to decide when to begin fixing, and to decide how many resources to throw at it, on down the line.
Perhaps Koskinen is trying to cause confusion, or implying that it's too late to fix the technical problems, or some such. But I suspect he's just now reached the point csy2k reached two years ago - he's found an actual clue to the real problem.
-- Flint (email@example.com), March 22, 1999.
In a broad sense, y2k has always been a management issue. The century date change problem was recognized long ago. Management, including the Pentagon bureacrats, made a conscious decision to use the two digit format for cost reasons. That decision was not made by rogue programmers. Similarly, the repair effort was not begun by management until a very late date.
If the PC or software you purchased two years ago is non-compliant, then it's a technical problem to you. Neither you nor I had the technical sophistication to make a decision as to whether to purchase a complian computer. But your and my PC will not cause TEOTWAKI. If it's TEOTWAKI, that will be because of conscious choices made by management.
In a more immediate sense, there is not a technical problem in solving any particular y2k glitch. Many people on this forum know how to solve the problem. The management problem is how to marshal assets and arrange priorities to actually get the work done. That's not a technical issue, it's a management issue. Whom do you hire, how much do you pay them, how much downtime do you devote to testing.
There are programmers on this forum who have posted stories of sitting at home waiting for the phone to ring on remediation job offers. If a company go bankrupt because it's non-compliant, then it will have suffered from poor management in failing to hire additional remediators. Again, a mangement decision on asset allocation.
Is any of this what Koskinenbones was referring to? I have no idea. But this is my take on the management v. tech. aspects.
-- Puddintame (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 22, 1999.
So we're pinning our health, livelyhood and security on the competance of managers?
Don't it give you a warm fuzzie?
-- Alison Tieman (email@example.com), March 22, 1999.
Maybe it means that the genius has finally realized that there is no way in hell to fix all the bugs in time, so it's time to start contingency plans.
-- @ (@@@.@), March 22, 1999.
It means that there are and have been so many lies told that many people deserve TEOTWAWKI.
-- fly .:. (.@...), March 22, 1999.
Damn Puddintame, that's a pretty good take. Are you sure I'm smarter than you? <:)=
-- Sysman (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 23, 1999.
It was always a management issue. One lone propeller head cant fix the company's code. All she can do is to resign, just like Napoleon said.
management = leadership... what winston churchill provided. management = administration... which is what the captain of the exxon valdez provided.
given that 1980's management = lobotomy it should be obvious that Getting the Corporate Code fixed is much less glamourous than LBO's mergers, and IPO's, it doesn't even have as sexy press as new products. For executive type fast trackers it has the stale smell of a career limiting move.
-- hunchback (email@example.com), March 23, 1999.