Army To Outsource Two Major Software Centers (Mission-Critical Y2K Problems?)greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Sounds like ... Y2K problems?Diane
APRIL 28, 1999 . . . 18:34 EDT
Army to outsource two major software centers; 500 jobs at risk
BY DANIEL VERTON (dan_verton@fcw.com)
http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/0426/web-wlmp-4-28-99.htmlThe Army has approved a waiver clearing the way for the privatization of two government software development centers without having to conduct a public/private competition for the work, putting up to 500 government jobs at risk, a spokesperson for the Army Materiel Command confirmed today.
The Army plans to release a request for proposals tomorrow for the St. Louis and Chambersburg, Pa., software centers. The move marks the latest step in the Army's plan to move forward with its Wholesale Logistics Modernization Program, a $1 billion program aimed at modernizing the Army's logistics operations. The Army plans to use WLMP to modernize systems that help manage an inventory valued at $9 billion and to rely on just-in-time delivery practices to supply troops with everything from helmets to helicopters. AMC wants to use WLMP to upgrade those systems by privatizing logistics software support functions.
[Looks mission-critical to me].
According to sources familiar with the effort, the RFP will cover the privatization of jobs and computer systems at the two centers and is expected to set off a politically charged round of legal maneuvering on the part of Congress and local union representatives to save the roughly 500 government jobs that would be lost under the plan.
The WLMP procurement is managed by the Army Communications-Electronics Command (Cecom) at Fort Monmouth, N.J., the subordinate command of the Army Materiel Command, which has 60,000 employees scattered at depots nationwide. Many of the depots are in small communities where AMC is the largest employer. The congressionally mandated "Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces" report, issued in 1995, called for outsourcing many of the depot functions.
The St. Louis and Chambersburg facilities are primarily responsible for writing code and maintaining much of the Army's legacy logistics applications, which are in dire need of modernization and upgrades, sources said. The two main systems maintained by these facilities are the Commodity Command Standard System and the Standard Depot System.
[Writing code ... legacy systems ... dire need of modernization? Sounds like ... Y2K].
A source who spoke to FCW on condition of anonymity said the RFP will transfer jobs at the St. Louis and Chambersburg facilities to the private sector but will guarantee employees their jobs for at least one year. "There's a tremendous amount of functional knowledge among the government workers that will be very valuable to industry," the source said. Although jobs will be lost, "some would argue that a bigger readiness issue for the Army is not modernizing."
A spokesperson for the National Federation of Federal Employees, an organization that since 1917 has sought to protect the interests of federal employees, said the federation plans to challenge the Army's decision. "We are reviewing our legal options and plan to move ahead with great vigor," the spokesperson said.
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 29, 1999
In general, this is an old story, and not Y2K related. DOD has, for years, been consolidating computing centers (mostly the big network and mainframe operations). In a previous job, we thought we might be caught up in the consolidation, but we were too little to bother with.
-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), April 29, 1999.
Sounds like Y2k "modernization" to me.Anyone else have flashbacks to Jason Kelly's book "Y2k - It's already too late"?
Mike ===================================================================
-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), April 29, 1999.
Diane and Mike, please re-read the post from anonymous99. The logistics program has been around for a long time and IS NOT Y2K related. The air force restructured its logistics organization in 92 as part of their program. Oh I forgot Diane I'm clueless, and it's such an interesting piece of the puzzle.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 29, 1999.
Yes, Anonymous99,But now they're fast approaching *the* deadline.
Wouldn't be surprised at all to see companies, et. al., who don't think they'll make it, dumping historical data, and outsourcing the mission critical stuff.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 29, 1999.
Maria,From what I've seen, this is typical Diane. She tries to attribute anything to Y2K. She has done this with chemical plant explosions aand a few other things as well, even though there is no evidence pointing to anything regarding Y2K in these situations.
-- CJS (CJS@CJS.com), April 29, 1999.
Often Clueless Maria,Restructuring and modernization, doesn't mean they do or don't have Y2K problems as well.
When I see comments about ... "legacy systems ... in dire need of modernization" ... in the Federal Computer Weekly, I simply wonder. This year.
Our government types are not known for offering up "extra" information on the status of their internal systems.
Why don't you research the issue and get back to us with supporting links, rather than your unsubstantiated "opinions."
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 29, 1999.
Ditto, CJS.
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 29, 1999.
Why don't you research the issue and get back to us with supporting links, rather than your unsubstantiated "opinions."Diane
You mean unsubstantiated opinions like [Writing code ... legacy systems ... dire need of modernization? Sounds like ... Y2K].
ROFLMAO
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 29, 1999.
That's the whole point, you moron. I don't have to research; I do know military systems. I've worked on them for nearly twenty years. I don't need any links. Further, the DoD shouldn't give the public any more information about the C3 systems or logistics systems or any other aspect of their operations. Number one, it serves no purpose (who really cares), number 2 it would cost additional funds to put out publications in terms you morons would understand, and number 3 most of the info is classified and would reveal to much to our enemies. Please get a clue Diane.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 29, 1999.
Maria is truly a puzzle. Maria:a) clearly has no repect for anyone who differs with her opinions in this matter, and is convinced that most all here are clueless;
b) spends considerable effort trying to persuade the clueless of the error of their ways, through reiteration of her largely unsupported views, often reinforcing them with invective and personal derogation;
c) nevertheless persists in this educational campaign, month after month, with no discernible success.
Is Maria unable to learn from experience? Such a lack can hardly instill confidence in her views.
None of the foregoing is intended as repudiation or endorsement of any of the views expressed in this forum.
Now, back to my rock....
-- Sisyphus (rolling@thestoneuphill~.edu), April 29, 1999.
Maria, How many government systems have you worked on? I worked on 4 myself and 3 of these still need replacing because of their age. These systems are 15 - 20 years old. I also know of 2 others that need replacing for the same reason, even though I didn't work on them personally.
-- DJ (reality@check.com), April 29, 1999.
Sisyphus, how do you draw your conclusions. I have no respect for Diane, Chris and Ray. How does that expand to any one who disagrees with me. I have lots of respect for Big Dog and others who I disagree with. Tell me your thinking process here.I post very little lately, don't have the time. I have the right to "voice" as everyone else on this forum. So I'm vindictive? When I first posted the doomer attack was awful. I never called Diane names until she first called me clueless. Even my first post in this thread, I attacked the message not the messenger, until her vindictive "rebuttal".
How do you measure success? I didn't know there were success factors in my campaign, as you call it. Please tell me about these factors, I didn't know my efforts were being measured.
Thanks for that analysis but please tell me how you were able to perceive these things.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 29, 1999.
Maria, she's-a crazy. Sharp, but crazy. I'm-a stupid, but happy. Not tryin'-a pick a fight with nobody.I used to work for somebody just like her. Vicious, hated other women, sharp as nails but couldn't see the big picture if poked her in the butt with a sharp stick. Ah, well.
-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), April 29, 1999.
Hi All,IMO, Diane is right. The Army's been sitting on it's butt for some time on this issue, most likely with people in control of those sites dragging their feet on the modernization so they could keep their jobs.
Now that Y2K is coming close, these people realize that their butts are on the line to see that the systems keep working -- and they can't do it. So now they're in favor of outsourcing.
BTW, does it seem reasonable that JIT methods be used to fight wars? Can we predict a year in advance that we're going to have a war so the procurement lead-times can be met?
-- Dean -- from (almost) Duh Moines (dtmiller@nevia.net), April 29, 1999.
Uh, DianeWhen you are talking about unsubstantiated opinions, do you mean like the one that you had on the chemical plant explosion a couple of weeks back? If you're going to make an allegation, the burden is on you to substantiate it, not on others to defend it. Take some responsibility for your statements.
-- CJS (CJS@CJS.com), April 29, 1999.
I arrive at my decisions based on information as I see it. It is a question of risk management for me and if I choose to spend a few thousand to prepare, that is my choice and my right. My participation on this forum is the result of my concern. There are no guarentees that Y2K will be a bump in the road. People like Dan the power man, Maria, and Davis cannot give me a single guarentee. Perhaps their misguided mockery will result in one person not being cautious enough to store that one months supply of medicine that keeps them alive.Maria calls me clueless. That is OK. A long time ago I understood the futility of arguing with a fanatic. What is sad is that she represents the military here. And what is even sadder is that we pay her salary.
-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), April 29, 1999.
Yet another thread in which the true colors of the species are revealed. :(How can folks discuss/debate without name-calling? Not a chance.
By all means, please continue! To the top.
-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), April 30, 1999.
Mike Lang, Sorry don't know where I called you clueless. My attack was directed toward Diane; she has no military experience (no clue about their systems) and yet continues to "find" these pieces of the puzzles that really have no bearing on Y2K. Have a good time spending a few thousand dollars on your preparations. BTW you pay the salary for lots of inefficiency: state, local and federal levels but that's the way of the world. Tell me, do you call Invar, Andy, and others on their insulting posts; I didn't think so.DJ, Most of the military systems I've worked on were upgrades (modernization) projects for NORAD. There are too many to list.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 30, 1999.
Since Im not in to mudwrestling (Maria), I re-ask this question of the greater group ...How many think well start to see evidence of companies, et. al., who don't think they'll make it, and choose instead to possibly dump historical data, and begin outsourcing the mission critical stuff?
Its a reasonable question.
Diane
BTW, everything has Y2K implications ... this year. Even the militarys actions. Even NORAD. Who pays for "all" of it? In more ways than just economically.
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.
Well, Diane, if you check out the RFP:Attachment 5 lists the proposed schedule, which doesn't even have the contract being awarded until March 2000. Would seem pretty clear it has no Y2k implications, either directly or indirectly .
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 30, 1999.
Just doing a little extra background checking ...Seems like the Army Materiel Command and the Wholesale Logistics Modernization Program (WLMP), inventory control system problems are interlocking topics of ... modernization, money, jobs and Y2K concerns ...
Its never simple is it?
And it DOES require looking a puzzle pieces ... Clueless Maria, Hoffmeister and CJS!!!! (Wonder if you both have guts enough to apologize?)
*Sigh*
Diane
You can do your own searching at Federal Computer Week ...
http:// athena.fcw.com/FCW/archive.nsf/SearchFormTry search terms like ... Army and Y2K or Year 2000 or Army Materiel Command.
Supporting snippets ...
OCTOBER 06, 1997
YEAR 2000
GAO: DOD system puts soldiers at risk
BY NICOLE LEWIS
nicole_lewis@fcw.com
http://athena.fcw.com/ FCW/archive.nsf/Search+View/ 5C95224B267755368525655B00676806?OpenDocumentThe Defense Department computer system that helps supply Army troops with everything from M-16s to beans is far behind in fixing its computers to be Year 2000-compliant which could cause "injury or death " according to the General Accounting Office.
The Logistics Systems Support Center (LSSC) is not "well positioned" to complete software fixes so that computers can correctly process Year 2000 dates making it "extremely difficult to efficiently and effectively equip and sustain the Army's forces around the world " GAO concluded in a report made available last week.
For example computer systems may identify weapons ordered on or after Jan. 1 2000 as 99-year-old excess inventory and may order the weapons to be discarded because the computers will process a year ending in "00" as the year 1900.
"Such an occurrence could severely impair overall military readiness [because] the necessary items would not be available for the soldier in the field " GAO noted. "More importantly soldiers and military civilians may not be able to properly maintain or replace weapon systems components which could result in injury or death."
If it is not fixed GAO reported the system will "significantly impair the army's ability to order manage sell and account for commodities such as ammunition communications and electronics." The report also stated that the Commodity Command Standard System (CCSS) a standard automated wholesale logistics system that the LSSC relies on to support the Army Materiel Command and other army and DOD organizations is heavily date dependent and because of its connections with other logistics systems failure to correct the Year 2000 problem could "impair the Army's ability to track and manage major-end items such as aircraft missiles and tanks as well as the many thousands of repair parts that support them."
The CCSS has one of the world's largest integrated business systems and comprises 561 separate subsystems that contain 10.2 million lines of program code in about 5 000 programs according to GAO.
While emphasizing that DOD has concurred with GAO's recommendations LSSC director Mike Whitelaw said the GAO report is "a bit of an exaggeration and there's a lot of hype." He added that LSSC has completed assessing computers and has bought software tools and products to fix the software.
And ...
MARCH 16, 1998
MODERNIZATION
Army launches $1 billion wholesale logistics project
BY BOB BREWIN
antenna@fcw.com
http://athena.fcw.com/ FCW/archive.nsf/Search+View/ 0DE343FE04395710852565F0005CB4BB?OpenDocument[snip]
... The Army's current wholesale logistics management system consists of the Commodity Standard System and the Standard Depot System and associated applications. The two systems run at Defense Department megacenters operated by the Defense Information Systems Agency and are supported by Central Design Activities (CDAs) - which design software - in St. Louis and in Chambersburg, Pa.
Both of these systems, Mills said, "were put in [in] the early 1970s, and all the state-of-the-art capabilities [developed over the past two decades] have [passed] us by."
[snip -- to end]
And ...
JUNE 01, 1998
WEB EXCLUSIVE
GAO targets Army's Year 2000 effort
BY BOB BREWIN
bob_brewin@fcw.com
http://athena.fcw.com/ FCW/archive.nsf/Search+View/ 75F1EFD7513C932285256707007DE90E?OpenDocument[snip]
... GAO sharply faulted the Army Materiel Command's Year 2000 efforts, saying the command had not estimated the costs to fix 382 of its 505 systems. "AMC data have a significant impact on the Army's Year 2000 efforts because AMC and its components own approximately 93 percent of the systems the Army reported as not being Year 2000- compliant," GAO reported. ...
[snip -- to end]
And ...
AUGUST 17, 1998
Cohen: Y2K takes priority
BY BOB BREWIN AND ORLANDO DE BRUCE
http://athena.fcw.com/ FCW/archive.nsf/Search+View/ 91916FC710F55C5D852566A5005612FA?OpenDocument... The Defense Department has warned the military services that it will impose a moratorium on all software system modifications in calendar 1999 if necessary to permit all its information technology resources to focus on fixing the Year 2000 millennium bug, according to a memo signed earlier this month by Secretary of Defense William Cohen.
[snip]
... Ed Brasseur, chief information officer at the Army Materiel Command, said the moratorium could possibly affect big-ticket programs managed by AMC, such as the Commanche advanced scout helicopter program. "It could affect all our programs,'' Brasseur said. He added that AMC has responsibility for 85 percent of the Army's embedded and information technology systems, "meaning we are the biggest part of the Army solution and the biggest part of the problem.'' Brasseur concurred with estimates that the number of systems on the OMB noncompliance list will increase in the next quarterly report, saying that increase will be a reflection of tougher reporting requirements.
AMC already devotes top management attention to the Year 2000 problem and will continue to do so, Brasseur said, with AMC commander Gen. Johnny Wilson receiving monthly reports. The Defense Logistics Agency, in a statement, said that it"plans to take all steps necessary to comply with the...Year 2000 memo.''
One industry source predicted that if Cohen imposes the software moratorium, it will have a direct impact on industry. "People are going to lose their jobs as a result of the moratorium,'' this source said, because the only software work available will be for Year 2000 remediation. ...
[snip]
... Bob Dornan, senior vice president of Federal Sources Inc., called the Cohen memo "both Draconian and necessary.... This is the only kind of language DOD understands.'' Dornan could not put a dollar value on the software work at risk if the moratorium were imposed, but he did say that in 1997 the Pentagon's IT budget showed that more than $3 billion was spent on outside support and services, including software support.
Despite the sweeping nature of the Cohen memo, Curtis believes it was absolutely necessary. "We now have a level and intensity of interest that will make a magnitude of difference,'' Curtis said. ...
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.
So there.Want more?
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.
Ummm, apologize for what?You posted an article relating to the RFP for the WLMP. If you had done the research, you would have found that the contract will not be awarded until March, 2000, and work won't actually begin until February, 2001. Your premise of the Army dumping the system because of failure to renovate for Y2k is patently false, unless you also believe the Army will not be using the system for a year and a half.
The articles you posted do nothing to back up your claim, other than yes, AMC had to fix its systems.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 30, 1999.
Sounds like its Y2K problemsI started building my house last year (yeah thats right). One thing after another has been going wrong, Murphy at work here. But after thinking about it, I bet its all because of Y2K. It started with the city taking six weeks to check the plans. I dont think they have their Y2K computer systems remediated yet. Then the foundation was two inches off square and bowed in many places. Thats probably because the tools they used were Y2K compliant. They had a tough time straightening that string to mark our the walls. And, their plumb bob was not compliant either. It went down hill from there. When do you think we will be out of this Y2K mess? Another interesting piece of the puzzle.
*Sigh*
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 30, 1999.
"...because the tools they used were NOT Y2K compliant." There must be something wrong with my keyboard; may be it's not y2k compliant either.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 30, 1999.
Hoffmeister,I was jumped on, by Maria and CJS for "implying" the first article at the top MIGHT be Y2K related, because it made slight reference to legacy systems.
IF you read my latest research, you'll find it IS Y2K related AND modernization, AND jobs AND money, etc.
Get it?
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.
Sorry, Diane. Just must be one reason I don't "Get It". But how does replacing a system (maybe) in 2001 relate to Y2k? The articles you referenced merely said the systems being replaced in the RFP would have to be fixed for Y2k. Well, gee, I guess they would, wouldn't they?
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 30, 1999.
Wow, Diane! You are coming unglued! It's OK to admit you made a mistake rather than grasping at straws. Let's look at your logic: The WLMP is part of the Army Material Command. The AMC has several hundred systems that require Y2K remediation. Therefore, the WLMP is not Y2K-compliant. WRONG!!! Like Hoff said, if the award is not made until March 2000, how could this possibly be Y2K related. The only snip that you posted dealing with the WLMP is:... The Army's current wholesale logistics management system consists of the Commodity Standard System and the Standard Depot System and associated applications. The two systems run at Defense Department megacenters operated by the Defense Information Systems Agency and are supported by Central Design Activities (CDAs) - which design software - in St. Louis and in Chambersburg, Pa.
Both of these systems, Mills said, "were put in [in] the early 1970s, and all the state-of-the-art capabilities [developed over the past two decades] have [passed] us by."
Just because it is old, that does not imply non-compliant. This may very well be one of the systems that the AMC has already patched to get through teh roll over but are planning on replacing it anyhow. It really IS simple -- you made an implication, Hoff showed you were wrong. Now, if you could just admit it....
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 30, 1999.
Hoffmeister,I was jumped on, by Maria and CJS for "implying" the first article at the top MIGHT be Y2K related, because it made slight reference to legacy systems.
!!!
Perhaps they outsource so they dont HAVE to replace it now?
Read my question ...
How many think well start to see evidence of companies, et. al., who don't think they'll make it, and choose instead to possibly dump historical data, and begin outsourcing the mission critical stuff?
Sheesh!
Time, for a time out. Tired of dealing with the braindead!
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.
Know the feeling, Diane. Know the feeling.Do you know what "outsourcing" is?
And, I guess for the last time, how does outsourcing in March 2000 keep them from having to fix or replace a system for Y2k?
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 30, 1999.
Did you miss this statement Diane, "While emphasizing that DOD has concurred with GAO's recommendations LSSC director Mike Whitelaw said the GAO report is "a bit of an exaggeration and there's a lot of hype." He added that LSSC has completed assessing computers and has bought software tools and products to fix the software." Also even if they find inventory to be 99 years old, what thinking human being will automatically trash it?Sounds like a great idea (The Defense Department has warned the military services that it will impose a moratorium on all software system modifications in calendar 1999 if necessary to permit all its information technology resources to focus on fixing the Year 2000 millennium bug, according to a memo signed earlier this month by Secretary of Defense William Cohen.) Most companies have put aside other projects to take care of Y2K.
"AMC already devotes top management attention to the Year 2000 problem and will continue to do so" More good news. I've visited their site, they were the first to have a database of Y2K remediation tools; pretty extensive.
"People are going to lose their jobs as a result of the moratorium". Unfortunately people (more specifically gov consultants) have been losing their jobs since Clinton got in office. The well went dry.
But Hoff is right, this is a future contract. How does your original post relate?
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 30, 1999.
As King Arthur said in Monty Python and the Holy Grail"Run away!! Run away!!"
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 30, 1999.
>>>That's the whole point, you moron. I don't have to research; I do know military systems. I've worked on them for nearly twenty years. I don't need any links. Further, the DoD shouldn't give the public any more information about the C3 systems or logistics systems or any other aspect of their operations. Number one, it serves no purpose (who really cares), number 2 it would cost additional funds to put out publications in terms you morons would understand, and number 3 most of the info is classified and would reveal to much to our enemies. Please get a clue Diane.-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 29, 1999.
In other words to paraphrase Maria; she knows better than everyone else, she's omniscent and needs no stinking research to see if what Diane posted was related or not.
The DoD should have NO ACCOUNTABILITY to peon little citizens, because the defense of this nation is above their little heads and they know what's best for themselves and the rest of us, therefore they should not give out any information that could induce public confidence through proof. We should all just take their word for it and shut up. No simple-minded citizen should care about the DoD. We just pay for them through our hard-earned tax dollars. We have no say. I mean they don't have any funds allocated to print out a report that we stupid sheep could understand anyway. Besides, it's none of our damn business.
Point number 3.....Aw hell Maria..you're a stupid bitch. Classified info? You mean like the CLASSIFIED info about the Nuclear LEGACY Source Codes your king---er, president GAVE to the Chinees for campaign money!!!!!!!????
Classified my ass. Yes, let's give our most sensitive nuclear defense secrets to our enemies, but don't let the American people know about DoD remediation efforts and their plans to outsource CCSS and SDS code.
Get bent Maria, and get off Diane's case. She's contributed a shitload more information in one day than all of your snide-snivelling little posts on this forum combined.
And Hoffmisery....Fuck off before you even post a reply.
-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 30, 1999.
Diane posted BS about a story being Y2k related and got called on it. That she refuses to acknowledge it doesn't change the fact.INVAR, stick to the NWO and reposting of WorldNetDaily crap. You're out of your league.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 30, 1999.
It's conjecture about whether this particular event is directly y2K caused or not is irrelevent- but the fact that is was brought up as a potential y2K influence is relevent.1) Assume this was impacted by being being an old system, running on old software, on old machines. If it needs to be replaced at the same time as other systems are being "pushed" by Y2K impacted dates, means it affects the DOD's readiness. It might hurt other systems (by not being compliant - which sounds likely) or it might be draining reosurces from y2K, or it might be "pushing" data and material that is Y2K related.
2) Many have noted that branches and divisions of companies might be sold out as a "preventitive" reaction to y2K - in this case, could be. Might not be. Certainly the union and local congressman want it operating, so the Army figures it can save money by closing the facility as a government run place.
3) If it is not y2K related, why do it now unless it is "breaking" and not functional? In which case, the case is not year 2000 date-related, it is 40-year-old date related. Same difference - if it has to be relaced in the year 2000, it impact readiness.
4) The government has over 70,000 systems that are not "mission critical" - and most of these are not even scheduled for survey yet. This could be one - it will fail due to year 2000 troubles, but it isn't as serious a failure as others. So they (the army) decided to "fix it" as early as possible. But after the first of the year - hoping it won't fail so bad that they can't use it. Hoping that they won't need emergency issues of ammo, trucks, parts, and spares. Helemts, transmissions, range finders, mortar embeds, etc.
5) So what? Assme this one story is wrong. So what? We (collectively) missed one. Darn. Frankly, I hope we miss all of the predictions - I hope things wll be as rosy as Mr. K. predicts.
But -
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), April 30, 1999.
Oh my Diane, you must feel so special that INVAR has come to your rescue.INVAR, thanks for calling me a stupid bitch. Coming from you I now know the opposite is true.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 30, 1999.
Robert, maybe you missed the fact that these systems are not being replaced while other systems are renovated for Y2k.The RFP clearly states the contract will not be awarded until March 2000, and that the plan for replacement not started until February, 2001.
Yes, this was a miss. The interesting thing is that that cannot be admitted.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 30, 1999.
70,000 takes a while to get done.Having said that - I agree, it might be a miss. But a miss by a miss is as good as as a mile as near as I can get in a simile.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), April 30, 1999.
As mentioned, on another thread ..."If taking heavy flak, you must be over the target!"
So ...
Lets do a little chronology ... one last time.
1) APRIL 28, 1999
http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/0426/web-wlmp-4-28-99.html
The posted article is about ...
The Army Materiel Command & its Wholesale Logistics Modernization Program, a $1 billion program aimed at modernizing the Army's logistics operations, and an RFP, for the privatization of two government software development centers, located at St. Louis and Chambersburg, Pa.
Army Materiel Command (AMC)
Wholesale Logistics Modernization Program -- WLPS -- a logistics system.
The Army plans to use WLMP to modernize systems that help manage an inventory valued at $9 billion and to rely on just-in-time delivery practices to supply troops with everything from helmets to helicopters.
Okay, theres a just-in-time troop supply issue here.
The WLMP procurement is managed by the Army Communications- Electronics Command (Cecom) at Fort Monmouth, N.J., the subordinate command of the Army Materiel Command.
Army Communications-Electronics Command (Cecom) manages the WLMP procurement.
The St. Louis and Chambersburg facilities are primarily responsible for writing code and maintaining much of the Army's legacy logistics applications, which are in dire need of modernization and upgrades, sources said. The two main systems maintained by these facilities are the Commodity Command Standard System and the Standard Depot System.
In dire need of modernization and upgrades ... are two main systems ... the Commodity Command Standard System and the Standard Depot System ... maintained by two facilities ... responsible for writing code and maintaining much of the Army's legacy logistics applications.
Repeat ...
Commodity Command Standard System -- CCSS.
Standard Depot System -- SDS.
Okay. Got that.
Two Army Materiel Command legacy logistic systems, CCSS and SDS, are in dire need of modernization and upgrades. Why ... DIRE???
The article does NOT mention Y2K.
It DOES mention legacy systems ... in dire need of modernization. DIRE NEED. Fine.
Is that, ad nauseum, point clear now?
As, Hoffmeister points out, there is a RFP request for proposal to be issued. The RFP ... Attachment 5 lists the proposed schedule, which doesn't even have the contract being awarded until March 2000. He says it Would seem pretty clear it has no Y2k implications, either directly or indirectly .
Sorry, Hoff. That was NOT clear in the article. It didnt mention dates.
Curious?
Well, lets go back in time to see IF there IS a link between ... Y2K ... Army Materiel Command ... logistics ... WLMP ... CCSS ... and SDS?
Okay.
2) OCTOBER 06, 1997
http://athena.fcw.com/ FCW/archive.nsf/Search+View/ 5C95224B267755368525655B00676806?OpenDocument
The Defense Department computer system that helps supply Army troops with everything from M-16s to beans is far behind in fixing its computers to be Year 2000-compliant which could cause "injury or death " according to the General Accounting Office.
Humm. A DoD, Army system, dealing with ... logistics ... is far behind in fixing its computers to be Year 2000-compliant.
Not only is it far behind, but it could cause "injury or death."
Wow. Does that sound DIRE enough?
The Logistics Systems Support Center (LSSC) is not "well positioned" to complete software fixes so that computers can correctly process Year 2000 dates making it "extremely difficult to efficiently and effectively equip and sustain the Army's forces around the world " GAO concluded in a report made available last week.
Okay. We definitely know were talking about ... logistics systems ... and Y2K?
See that one?
The report also stated that the Commodity Command Standard System (CCSS) a standard automated wholesale logistics system that the LSSC relies on to support the Army Materiel Command and other army and DOD organizations is heavily date dependent and because of its connections with other logistics systems failure to correct the Year 2000 problem could "impair the Army's ability to track and manage major-end items such as aircraft missiles and tanks as well as the many thousands of repair parts that support them."
Wow. A report .
Stating the CCSS system ... also referred to in the APRIL 28, 1999 article ... is heavily date dependent ... and because of its connections with other logistics systems ... failure to correct the Year 2000 problem ... could "impair" the Army's ability to track and manage major-end items.
Now, we have a DIRECT link to Y2K problems, for the CCSS system.
Got that?
Good. I knew you could.
The CCSS has one of the world's largest integrated business systems and comprises 561 separate subsystems that contain 10.2 million lines of program code in about 5 000 programs according to GAO.
Oh. The CCSS has one of the world's largest integrated business systems. Do you SUPPOSE ... one-of-the-world's-largest-integrated- business-systems ... could be MISSION CRITICAL? Even though the article doesnt say so?
Gee. Can you see the obvious?
Maybe, maybe not.
3) MARCH 16, 1998
http://athena.fcw.com/ FCW/archive.nsf/Search+View/ 0DE343FE04395710852565F0005CB4BB?OpenDocumentXThe Army's current wholesale logistics management system consists of the Commodity Standard System and the Standard Depot System and associated applications.
Where have we seen these logistics management system names before? Up in the APRIL 28, 1999 article.
Commodity Standard System ... a.k.a. CCSS ... Commodity Command Standard System.
With stated Y2K problems. In a GAO report.
Standard Depot System ... SDS.
Both of these systems, Mills said, "were put in [in] the early 1970s, and all the state-of-the-art capabilities [developed over the past two decades] have [passed] us by."
Lets see.
They are both legacy systems. One has stated Y2K problems.
Its a stretch. (Yawn).
But lets assume they BOTH have Y2K problems ... for the sake of argument.
4) JUNE 01, 1998
http://athena.fcw.com/ FCW/archive.nsf/Search+View/ 75F1EFD7513C932285256707007DE90E?OpenDocument
GAO sharply faulted the Army Materiel Command's Year 2000 efforts, saying the command had not estimated the costs to fix 382 of its 505 systems. "AMC data have a significant impact on the Army's Year 2000 efforts because AMC and its components own approximately 93 percent of the systems the Army reported as not being Year 2000- compliant," GAO reported.
Humm. As of less than a year ago, the GAO faults the Army Materiel Command's Year 2000 efforts.
Got that?
Army Materiel Command (AMC) and Y2K efforts faulted ... for poorly estimated costs.
Not only that, but ... because AMC and its components own approximately 93 percent of the systems the Army reported as not being Year 2000- compliant.
Wow.
93%. As of June, 1998. Thats a whole lot of Y2K non-compliancy ... for the Army Materiel Command!!!
5) AUGUST 17, 1998
http://athena.fcw.com/ FCW/archive.nsf/Search+View/ 91916FC710F55C5D852566A5005612FA?OpenDocumentThe Defense Department has warned the military services that it will impose a moratorium on all software system modifications in calendar 1999 if necessary to permit all its information technology resources to focus on fixing the Year 2000 millennium bug, according to a memo signed earlier this month by Secretary of Defense William Cohen.
Okay.
A Y2K fire is lit under ... the military services ... all information technology resources ... are to focus on fixing the Year 2000 ... and ... in calendar 1999 ... the DoD warns of a moratorium on all software system modifications.
Y2Ks important. Great. Wonder what that implies for the Army Materiel Command?
Ed Brasseur, chief information officer at the Army Materiel Command, said the moratorium could possibly affect big-ticket programs managed by AMC.
Big-ticket programs.
Gosh, even though it doesnt say so ... right here ... I wonder if ... the AMCs CCSS ... one of the world's largest integrated business systems ... as stated in the OCTOBER 06, 1997 article ... would be considered a big-ticket programs managed by AMC?
What do you think? If, you ... think.
"It could affect all our programs,'' Brasseur said.
ALL ... as in all Army Materiel Command programs. Got that?
He added that AMC has responsibility for 85 percent of the Army's embedded and information technology systems, "meaning we are the biggest part of the Army solution and the biggest part of the problem.'' Brasseur concurred with estimates that the number of systems on the OMB noncompliance list will increase in the next quarterly report, saying that increase will be a reflection of tougher reporting requirements.
Double Wow.
AMC ... 85% ... of the Army's embedded and information technology systems ... biggest part of the Army solution ... and the biggest part of the problem.
Dont forget ...
The CSSS, managed by the AMC ... is *still* ... one of the world's largest integrated business systems. With stated Y2K problems.
Humm.
You DONT think its an Army problem, Hoff ... even when they think it is?
Looks like a problem to me.
AMC already devotes top management attention to the Year 2000 problem and will continue to do so.
I trust, implicitly, that they do.
if Cohen imposes the software moratorium, it will have a direct impact on industry. "People are going to lose their jobs as a result of the moratorium,'' this source said, because the only software work available will be for Year 2000 remediation.
Yes. Job loss is a concern.
Now, returning to the APRIL 28, 1999 article ... its also concerned with ... putting up to 500 government jobs at risk, a spokesperson for the Army Materiel Command confirmed today.
Gee. Is there a LINK?
Weve already established ... there is a DIRECT Y2K link. Even if there is an RFP for March, 2000.
WHAT ... does it all mean?
Hoffmeister, says ...
You posted an article relating to the RFP for the WLMP. If you had done the research, you would have found that the contract will not be awarded until March, 2000, and work won't actually begin until February, 2001. Your premise of the Army dumping the system because of failure to renovate for Y2k is patently false, unless you also believe the Army will not be using the system for a year and a half.
ONE LAST TIME Hoff ...
I didnt make a premise of the Army dumping the system because of failure to renovate for Y2k. Did I? You did.
BTW, the first APRIL 28, 1999 article above, mentions NOTHING about the 2000 or 2001 timing of the RFP ... does it?
(Also .. your RFP link won't download to my system correctly, so I can't read it first hand. But, I accept that it says, what you "say" it says about the dates).
All I asked was ... if this article sounds like there are Y2K problems.
Simple question.
Got that?
I have duly researched and found Y2K problems with the Army Materiel Command and more specifically with the CCSS logistics system. Havent I?
You have researched and found that the RFP is dated after 2000.
So ... We are BOTH correct. Okay?
Now I ask ... once again ... as I asked repeatedly ...
How many think well start to see evidence of companies, et. al., who don't think they'll make it, and choose instead to possibly dump historical data, and begin outsourcing the mission critical stuff?
THAT ... was/is ... my question, Hoff!
Is outsourcing one way to handle non-compliance?
Meanwhile ...
The DoD Y2K deadline looms ... and I ALSO ... NOW ... wonder ... how the Army Materiel Command and more specifically, the CCSS logistics system will handle Y2K. Just even *more* curious ... thinking of the Kosovo situation. And because, there was so much heat from you and military Maria.
Kinda interesting, huh?
What WILL our future bring? How is the DoD ... really ... doing?
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.
Diane, just admit it. Slowly now: I....was.....wrong.You said:
I didnt make a premise of the Army dumping the system because of failure to renovate for Y2k. Did I? You did.
Hmm, let's take a look.
You first post the article, regarding the RFP for privatization of the the two facilities and modernization of two systems.
The thread title includes "(Mission-Critical Y2k Problems?)".
In the first posting you started with "Sounds like ... Y2K problems?".
In a follow-up, you state:
But now they're fast approaching *the* deadline.
Wouldn't be surprised at all to see companies, et. al., who don't think they'll make it, dumping historical data, and outsourcing the mission critical stuff.
So yes, Diane, the premise you proposed was that the outsourcing and modernization RFP, the basis for the article, was due to Y2k, that they were "dumping historical data, and outsourcing the mission critical stuff", because they "don't think they'll make it".
Deny it if you wish, and if it makes you feel better, but it is readily apparent from your posts.
Your subsequent posts establish that yes, in October 1997, the Army was concerned about the Y2k state of these systems, and that these systems are mission critical. That's it. Yes, I'm sure they had to be fixed for Y2k. No doubt about it. For all I know, they aren't done yet. But this article and RFP have nothing to do with the Y2k state of the systems.
The argument is really very simple, Diane. The Army can't award a contract to outsource systems in March, 2000, to deal with Y2k. No actual work is scheduled on modernization of the systems (outside of analysis to create the plans) until February, 2001. As you've established, these systems are mission critical.
See, Diane, March, 2000 is after the rollover.
As for outsourcing systems for Y2k, no, at least not in the traditional sense of outsourcing. I've been with three large companies that have outsourced systems and applications. What this means is another company takes over the existing applications, and maybe the actual hardware. The companies do not switch to new applications. So outsourcing would have little effect on a company's Y2k status, with the possible exception of Hardware (mainframes).
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 01, 1999.
Dear Hoff ... I admit ... I was both wrong AND right!Now, Hoffmeister: just admit it. Slowly now: I....was.....wrong, and right, too.
Feel better?
Good.
Feeling good, for either of us, doesnt mean the Army Materiel Command, *still* doesnt have major Y2K problems! And conversely, they could be *amazing* wizards pulling a very sick Y2K puppy, out of the very big last-minute hat. Time ... will tell. But will the DoD?
*Sigh*
And ... thank you ... for FINALLY answering my question. It was also readily apparent from your posts that you did NOT get my question.
It took awhile, but Im *proud* of you.
This time. Just once.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.
Whoa, wait a minute. Let me see if I got this straight now.Does AMC have y2k problems? Yes they do. Are they outsourcing their systems? Yes, they are. Is this outsourcing related in any way to their y2k problems? No, it isn't. Did Diane suggest otherwise? Yes, she did. Was she right? No, she wasn't. Will she admit it? Only partially, and only when backed into a corner.
Hoff, on balance I think you're wrong here. I learned long ago that when you disagree with a woman, you apologize. *Especially* if you're right.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 01, 1999.
OK. Sorry, Diane.BTW, I think there is a form of what one could call outsourcing that could have an effect for Y2k. A company I know has been experimenting with creating an SAP "Data Center", to attempt to penetrate the Medium size business market.
Basically, SAP has been traditionally too expensive for a normal implementation at medium size companies. The premise is to have "vanilla" systems pre-configured, with the hardware, and run the systems for the companies. Eliminates much of the expense (and, unfortunately, the consultants). They can have a company up and running in 3 months.
The problem is the companies must change their business processes to match the vanilla configurations. And most are not willing to do that.
But, if Y2k is as bad in SME's as some think, it could be an option.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 01, 1999.
I also recall a conversation with a Portland banker (posted several months back) about how the industry mergers we were seeing over the past couple years, were most, not all, Y2K related.She felt certain banks had assessed the costs of remediation, and found it would be a wiser strategy to merge with a group much farther along.
She also said as this year continues, we'll see some more mergers.
While this is not the traditional "outsourcing," as I understand it, it's an interesting way of handling the problem.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.
There is always the question of the strength of the relationship between a change in business practice and y2k. At least one business service (prodigy classic?) was discontinued because it was already losing money, and remediation pushed it over the edge. Whether a merger already being considered becomes a better deal because of y2k concerns is most likely. But y2k might not be the primary reason, simply one of many reasons contributing to the decision.We had a thread a while back discussing how many business failures will be blamed on y2k, and how many of those businesses might have failed anyway (though maybe not quite as soon). Certainly y2k is a pervasive consideration, and probably factors into a great many business decisions to some degree. How often (if ever) it is the *overriding* consideration, even those making the decisions might not know.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 01, 1999.
Actually, I was kind of thinking, in addition to outsourcing, perhaps companies could "park" their mission-critical operations, elsewhere, for "servicing" while trying to get back on their corporate feet, so- to-speak.Case in point.
Let's say, in November, a given local area KNOWS either it's local power utility or telecommunications systems won't be ready. But they DO know, one state over (or pick a place -- any place), that the probability of infrastructure remaining completely operational, is fairly high. I'd expect, then, to see companies temporarily moving, to keep key business functions operational.
It's a variation on the theme of "flight to quality."
Further, in the way of the unexpected, what if, many of the international companies did the same thing. Moved headquarters to another country.
Just something to ponder.
Even wonder, if the stock market holds, it could go through the roof, say 15,000 just because organizations "park' their funds for the duration.
Some of the Y2K repercussions could be completely opposite, to what "logic" holds is possible.
Should be interesting.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.
Boy Diane, you really let your true colors show on this thread. I thought you had more sense than this.The logistics system for all the military branches could have a DIRE impact to life and death situations. They supply the military systems both defensive and offensive with components to keep them operational. Nothing new here. It's been a fact for the last two hundred years. You're searching too hard. And further, they have been modernizing for as long as I have know and I suspect probably longer. Unfortunately, the military many times get the "left over" equipment that other organizations don't need and are throwing away. As a result, their systems start out as antiquated. Again, nothing new. If you look back at past issues of Commerce Business Daily, you'll see the number of contracts to modernize military systems. The media only publicizes the new weapons, state of the art stuff, because that's interesting to the public.
True story: NORAD started to improve its sytems (which has an impact on life and death, dire, etc) only after foreign dignitaries said, "OK show me your real command centers". They thought that we had shown them fake centers to hide the real spiffy stuff.
To answer the question on outsourcing, many companies including the gov does it all the time. The maintenance for NORAD systems is outsourced, happened back in 1987. Once again look back into the CBD to find publication of contracts. MCI will now outsource their IT organization. This is the way many companies are headed. Another fact of life that has nothing (nothing) to do with Y2K. It has to do with businesses isolating their functions, tax laws, and other reasons which I'm sure you won't grasp.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 02, 1999.
Maria,Read what I posted please.
The Army Materiel Command's CCSS and SDS logistics, mission-critical systems ... DO have Y2K problems. Period. I've CLEARLY illustrated that issue.
As in EVERY-thing there are interdependent issues ...modernization, jobs, money, efficiency, outsourcing, etc. ... including "timing" ... this year! I don't dispute that. Why do you keep on whipping this?
No. Don't answer that. We already know why you do.
*Sigh*
Have a nice Sunday.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 02, 1999.
Maria - Do you deny that most mainframe systems are not Y2k compliant? What does your vast professional experience tell you?
-- Amy (leoneamy@aol.com), May 02, 1999.
Amy:You may have meant this as a rhetorical question, intended to ridicule, but it deserves a good answer anyway.
My experience suggests that y2k bugs will lurk in most mainframe systems for many many years. And when slapdash windowing schemes come home to roost, we'll see a lot of these issues all over again.
The important questions are, will enough mainframe systems remain adequately functional despite residual errors, and will we be able to address the most serious of those errors in a timely fashion? I'd pay close attention to the testing process now in full swing all around us. Decent testing will surely uncover the most blatant and serious bugs, which are being repaired as they pop up. As testing continues, the residual bugs are weeded out of the code paths that handle the most common processing -- the stuff we can't very well do without.
So we won't get them all. We'll get the big ones. We won't be compliant, but we'll be functional (with issues).
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 1999.
No, Diane, what you CLEARLY demonstrated was that CCSS and SDS had Y2k problems. Nothing you posted implies they are not fixed.And golly gee, what did I find here?
CCSS STATUS
Certification Testing Began on Schedule 6 October
Scheduled to be Completed 15 March
Testing On Schedule. CCSS Release 9912 Successfully Completed Prototype and Has been Installed at All Operational Sites
Program On Schedule to Meet March Completion
The status was updated February, 1999.
Guess maybe CCSS has been fixed, huh?
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 02, 1999.
Maria, You might like to go
HERE,drop "diane" into the Find feature and take a look a the CV that is there. probably won't change where you and she have problems, but I always figgered that it couldn't hurt to understand the people I was fightin' with a little better. This might also explain the penchant for "puzzle pieces" as the folks at SONY were the ones that taught her the open source inteligence techniques. JMO Chuck
-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 02, 1999.
Chuck,Actually the biggest online research training ground got kicked off in B-grad school, getting the M.B. A. Then it just got honed with the Information Broker and the competitive intelligence research projects. We had numerous Japanese clients at that time. They tended to gather every piece of relevant data, pour over it for a long time, and then come to consensus decisions, after doing their homework ... ad nauseum.
Learned a lot from them. The stuff they gathered from public domain sources, including their favorite NTIS ... National Technical Information Service ... was nothing short of awesome.
It was when I had my S.V. software devp. company that I was given free passwords to most the major online information services like Dow Jones News Retrieval and Dialog Information Services (owned by Lockheed Missiles & Space Corp.) It was fun having the world of information at your fingertips. The SONY experience just completed the global perspective training.
Now, the internet has just about surpassed what you could gather then on the private systems. Online research is actually *fun* again.
For Hoff ... tell you what ...
Ill do some *more* checking on other sources as well, since youre so fascinated with the Army Materiel Command's Y2K situation.
That one slide you link to as confirmation of Y2K readiness, is a little lean on details, IMHO, for such a world class, mission-critical system.
;-D
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 02, 1999.
As for being "fascinated", I wasn't the one who made the original posting. Now was I?I suppose I should let you slide your way gracefully out of this thread. But, as you were imploring others on another thread to "argue with facts", just trying to satisfy your wishes.
I do so want you to remain proud of me, Diane.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 02, 1999.
Hoffmeister,You call facts one little slide you posted as confirmation of Y2K readiness?
Wow.
Hoff .. have you been checked out ... or in .. lately?
Yes, I am now "fascinated" by this topic since it generated so much heat from you and other bump-meisters.
Back later ... today or tomorrow ... with updated reports. Sorting my way through House and Senate web-site & linked testimony ... at the moment.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.
Diane, you are really showing a frantic side.FWIW, this is what I think about the experience you bring to the Y2K table (and the military): those who can do, those who can't ... You have little (very little) hands on experience and all the research you do in a twelve month period can not come close to my years experience in the field.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 03, 1999.
Actually, Diane, it's just one slide in a presentation on the status of CCSS. Fairly detailed, as presentation slides go.As opposed to the speculation you supplied, yes, these are as close as I could get to actual facts. Tell me, before I waste anymore time researching facts, as you requested, just what you would accept?
Looking forward to your updates.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 03, 1999.