InformationWeek on Y2kgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Apologies if posted before, but the current InformationWeek has a series of articles on Y2k:
I won't post all of the articles. One of the more interesting bits, though, is they surveyed 240 IT professionals, and 24% reported Y2k projects complete.
-- Hoffmeister (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 12, 1999
****With 24% reporting that their year 2000 projects are complete, confidence that serious problems will be avoided is high. Even so, several experts looking at financial reports filed by large U.S. companies warn some may not have left enough time to complete their Y2K work by year's end.****
Weren't they supposed to all be done in Dec 98 so that they had a year to test?
Bwhahahahahaha (to paraphrase a famous poster to this forum)
-- LM (email@example.com), May 12, 1999.
I'm curious. Do you call this Good News or Bad News?
Research surveye 240 IT professionals in six industries: financial service, health care, noncomputer manufacturing, telecommunications, transportation, and utilities. With 24% reporting that their year 2000 projects are complete, confidence that serious problems will be avoided is high. Even so, several experts looking at financial reports filed by large U.S. companies warn some may not have left enough time to complete their Y2K work by year's end.
-- Spindoctor (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 12, 1999.
In retrospect, this thread doesn't look to me like something Mr. Hoffmeister would post. I could be wrong; I'm relatively new here, but the flavor of most of Mr. Hoffmeister's previous posts seemed to be quite a bit more optimistic. 24% y2k complete can in no way be considered optimistic. Is this a fake post? Will the real Mr Hoffmeister please stand up!
-- Spindoctor (email@example.com), May 12, 1999.
Look, time is growing short, and the pollys need ANYTHING smacking of ANY kind of Y2K success stories. And you watch, a la Gary North's prediction, the pollys on this forum will start moving towards the "So what if it turns out that Y2K won't get fixed on time -- it was never a big problem anyway." (!!!!!!!!!)
-- King of Spain (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 12, 1999.
These are terrible articles. They are comprised of charts which reflect the confidence level of people who work in these industries. In other words, these are nothing less than opinions of people who depend on the success of remediation to keep their jobs.
Not Information Week, rather Information Weak.
In any case, some experts suggest the results of any industry survey should be taken with a grain of salt. According to the Senate Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, this type of survey is the most widely-used method for measuring Year 2000 compliance. However, self-reporting of Year 2000 status (even when required by law) has yielded unreliable results in most sectors. "Industry associations represent the interests of their member companies," observed Don Meyer, the committee's press secretary.
-- Mike Lang (email@example.com), May 13, 1999.
That should be in all caps.
-- Brian (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 13, 1999.
Mr. K of S.,
Sorry, but I owe it to my family to not rely on single-source data. Mr. Hoffmeister's previous posts don't jive with this one, and Dr. North's record of accuracy isn't exactly stellar. Now don't get me wrong; Dr. North seems to have at least raised awareness about the Y2K problem; in that respect I appreciate his efforts. It's just that don't agree with his apparent agenda or conclusions.
But you are correct; time is short...
-- Spindoctor (email@example.com), May 13, 1999.
First, yes this was my post.
As to whether this is Good or Bad News, it is just another source of information. In my opinion, 24% complete at the point the survey was taken would be pretty much inline with expectations; maybe even higher than I would have thought. I honestly wouldn't think most organizations would be done until the end of the year. I would expect testing to continue for quite some time.
But this does add a reference to the "Bell Curvers", looking for the "early finishers". Personally, I don't subscribe to this model; organizations that set June 30 deadlines are not very likely to finish "early"; work, like spending/income, expands to fill the time allotted.
As for the Dec 31, 1998 date, a couple of things. First, no, not everyone gave this date. And more importantly, the statement with a year to test definitely implies that the date was meant to mean done with remediation, not done with the project.
-- Hoffmeister (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 13, 1999.