Y2k related? You decide.

http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-04/07/165l-040799-idx.html

-- Gearhead (2plus2@motown2.com), April 07, 1999

Answers

"Andrews said that the payroll checks were supposed to be directly deposited but that a glitch occurred in the transfer of the money between the Federal Reserve and the D.C. Credit Union."

That says a lot!

Can we expect to see more of this?

What caused the glitch?

Any Comments?

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.t@worldnet.att.net), April 07, 1999.

Beta testers often experience software problems.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 07, 1999.

Tom, I didn't see where in the article that it said this software was in the beta testing phase.

I'm curious whether the code was actually reviewed line by line to find where the problem arose, or if some sort of "band-aid" was administered to help the office get through this week's payroll. It seems as though a small problem today could become a big problem tomorrow if not corrected.

Jeannie

-- jhollander (hollander@ij.net), April 07, 1999.

Here's the sentence in the article that definitively answers the question of whether it's Y2k-related!

It was supposed to be running at least two years ago.

Was D.C. working on Y2k two years ago? No.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 07, 1999.

Here's another quote from the same article:

''Yesterday's first round of payroll checks on the new Y2K-compliant system was six years in the making. The computer program that previously kept track of payroll and personnel for the District's 32,000 employees was first installed in 1972, relying on 1960s technology. The equipment was so old that replacement parts were no longer manufactured and technicians had to cannibalize parts from other equally antiquated machines.

More than $10.2 million was spent on the new system, which merges the city's personnel and payroll records for the first time. It was supposed to be running at least two years ago.

"This is a system the District has been waiting for for a very long time," Andrews said.''

Funny how you guys seem to miss words like "new" and "Y2K-compliant."

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 07, 1999.

"I didn't see where in the article that it said this software was in the beta testing phase."

No more did I. I'll be more direct.

The new software is just now being "implemented," i.e., put into use in the real world. Substantive problems are being encountered. This is typical of software in beta test.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 07, 1999.

Doomslayer,

That it is Y2k-compliant does not mean that D.C. necessarily specified Y2k compliance when they requested it. I have a Y2k-compliant personal organizer, but never thought of determining whether its calendar functions were Y2k-compliant until after I bought it.

Was D.C. working on Y2k two years ago?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 07, 1999.

Doomslayer -

Not sure what point you were making with that comment. We can infer that part of this project's mission and scope system was to replace the older non-compliant systems with this "new" and "Y2K-compliant" system.

Here's an equally interesting item:

More than $10.2 million was spent on the new system, which merges the city's personnel and payroll records for the first time. It was supposed to be running at least two years ago.

They missed their deadline by 24 months, which is right in line with current software project metrics for projects of that size. No mission-critical Y2K remediation projects have the luxury of that slippage. You either meet the deadline (i.e., Fiscal Year rollover or Calendar Year change) or you initiate contingency plans.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), April 07, 1999.

Does anybody, need more PROOF on projects bring LATE?

-- SCOTTY (BLehman202@aol.com), April 07, 1999.

Does anybody, need more PROOF on projects bring LATE? (Sorry, "being")

-- SCOTTY (BLehman202@aol.com), April 07, 1999.