Looking for "the real story" from larger organizationsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
If you have been involved with the Y2K issue for some time, and have done your homework. you have probably come to the following conclusions:
1. A major risk is the larger organizations (fortune 500, Gov't Agencies, etc.) They have the largest software suites and are probably still trying to contend with their deathmarch magnituude projects as we speak (oops - write). And as Ed has written, have the greatest risk of failure due to the magnitude of the projects.
2. They are not forthcoming with accurate information. There are several reasons for this including the distance between the front line troups and the executives, posturing, protection of stock values, legal issues, etc., etc.
Of course, there are many other serious Y2K risks including international trade, SME's, the reaction of the public and a host of others. For my question today however, I would like to ask if any of you are key components of the remediation projects of the larger organization and would like to indicate "the real story." Anonymous posts are OK and "forgetting" to mention your organization is OK too. However, the key is RELIABLE information. Some organizations I am wondering about include those with huge dependencies, JIT systems and simply complex systems. Organizations that fall into my category could include GM, FORD, SEIMANS, Governments (all), TOYOTA, MITSUBISI, etc. etc.
Anybody care to step up to the plate ?
-- Jim Standen (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 06, 1999
Jim, This is not directly responsive to your post, but did you see the news today and yesterday that GM falsely represented the December sales figures of Cadillac so that Cadillac could maintain its dominance of Lincoln in unit volume?
GM wrote a letter of apology to Ford, and of course denied any wrongdoing. GM could not explain the variance.
I pretty much can guess what happened as can anyone else above the age of 7. GM lied for marketing purposes. People within GM were scared for their marketing life. How petty is that. They can't even tell the truth about something so trivial as sales figures --an easily audited claim. We only get the truth after 5 months.
Can you imagine getting the truth on an enterprise critical issue. Bad news will not come forth. This country could have the lights out for three months and GM could be unable to produce vehicles for a year, and you still would not get an admission of known problems. They will still claim compliancy and point the finger at someone else.
If they can't count Cadillacs, how can they measure remediation.
-- Puddintame (email@example.com), May 06, 1999.
>>if they can't count Cadillacs....Now that is sooo cold. But true!
-- Mike Lang (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 06, 1999.
Myself and others have asked for the same thing in the past. Very little response. I have worked as a project managemnt consultant for a very large insurance company (it's a household name), they have yet to finish inventory. Don't think they will meet their schedule in time. They are into contingency planning in a BIG WAY NOW.
The thing that is so dam frustrating about Y2K is the lack of reliable information. I hope my little bit of info helps in your quest. Good Luck!
-- Watcher5 (email@example.com), May 06, 1999.
I have been watching and speaking to the Royal Bank for almost 1.5 years. Their website used to say that they would use two outside companies to certify compliance scheduled for the end of 1998 with an additional year for further testing. The page even had a date showing last revision. That has since all been removed and it is claimed "they are way ahead of everybody because they are testing now". Check it now at royalbank.com
-- Will (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 08, 1999.
Fiddleheads Fiddleheads 3 Left Feet, Michael Jackson, I covet his meat.
-- Norman Plankey (email@example.com), August 26, 2004.