Hamasaki: Why "99% complete" can be misleading

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Author:cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net>
  Posting History

Post Reply

On Wed, 12 May 1999 00:32:03, fedinfo@halifax.com wrote:
> Organizations CHARACTERIZED by IT ineptitude have FIXED their problems.
> They fixed about HALF their problems, thae LAST part, which is the MOST
> difficult, in just over THREE MONTHS. Imagine that!!!
Yes and no, paul.  The secret is the meaning of the word "is".  If a company has 100 systems and defines things right, they can do it. 
System 1 is a 200 line Access program that tracks the coffee club. System 2 is a 500 line VB program that handles time sheets. ... 
System 100 is a twenty million line S/370 assembly language system with a COBOL II CICS UI that does everything from ordering inventory, driving the CAM robots in the factory, issuing route slips and bills of lading, and there's a patch in it to pay the CEO's "special friend" for "relaxation services".
It's very easy to get to 99% done, just a little more to do, no problems here, -tweeee-tweeeeeeet- just whistling in the cemetery, let's see if we can slide out the door, all's well.
It's hard for a dirt beneath the fingernails, honest day's work person to understand the sneak-by mentality of the corporate-climber.  These twits are out there. Fortunately they're not everywhere but unfortunately, they like to slide into bean-counter, make work roles.
We who do the heavy lifting in IT, the code-grunts, geeks and geekettes have to deal with them, watch them grab for the glory.  They call us names because we prefer to work rather than handwave.
What's sad for the public is that these systems really do important and useful work.  When they break, the world changes and nothing, no fist shaking, no screams from the management, nothing will bring the life back to the cold machinery.
We can do it in time.  Not in a year, two perhaps, more like three and we can fix the systems.  The problem is that we won't have the benefit, the leverage, the juice, the vigorish, the power of the 30+ years of automation until the systems run again.
What fails, whose investment is lost, who dies, who sits in the dark and waits for phones to work again?  How long will it take?  Will the government make it worse as they did the so-called energy crisis in the 1970's.
Or will they step out of the way, dismantle the anti-work mentality, and give the country back to the people.
cory hamasaki http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html

-- a (a@a.a), May 13, 1999


Oh lord - I had to read that twice before I understood what was going on. Cory H. and Paul Milne in a verbal contest for "I'm the biggest gloomer". LOL LOL LOL.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

What's wrong Paul? Have you given up your feeble attempts at addressing the issues?

-- a (a@a.a), May 13, 1999.

You watch, "a", as Davis & co. will start backpeddling towards a "Y2K is no big problem regardless of whether it gets fixed or not" position. The pollys have to, even they will have to see how ludicrous it will be as we approach mid year, and then watch as all the June 30 deadlines get missed.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), May 13, 1999.

Yes. A sure sigh of this is Hoff's post yesterday where he regales in posting a survey that claims 24% of the work is done.

-- a (a@a.a), May 13, 1999.

Hmmm. Reading comprehension problems, 'a'?

I believe the story said 24% of the Y2k projects were complete. As in 100% complete.

We now return you to your usual doomer station.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 13, 1999.

I believe the story said 24% of the Y2k projects were complete.

Would that be the easiest 24% of the projects?

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 13, 1999.

Not to worry. They'll be done by Dec 31 1999. With all of 2000 for "testing".

-- a (a@a.a), May 13, 1999.


You got that one exactly correct. The test results will be interesting indeed.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 13, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ