ADP Announces: Ready For Y2Kgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
ADP on track to keep America paid
Payroll processor for 35 million passes Y2K test with 25 clients
By Thomas Hoffman
05/31/99 Automatic Data Processing Inc., which processes paychecks for 35 million Americans and 350,000 companies, last week announced successful completion of year 2000 tests with 25 of its biggest customers.
With the exception of two minor glitches -- including a small processing problem with one customer's enterprise resource planning system -- the results of the tests bode well for U.S. workers who are concerned about receiving their paychecks on time early next year.
"We were told up front [by senior management] that failure was not an option," said James Kinder, head of ADP's year 2000 program office.
Payroll processing isn't the top priority for most corporate year 2000 programs, but "it is a big focus," said Stephanie Moore, an analyst at Giga Information Group Inc. in Cambridge, Mass. Moore said many of Giga's clients are moving their final 1999 payroll runs to Dec. 21 to ensure employees are paid by the end of the year.
The other problem that popped up during ADP's test wasn't really a Y2K glitch at all. Because next year's tax rates won't be published until August, ADP was originally unable to display some tax rates for its customers. To fix the problem, ADP hard-coded the current tax rate into its general ledger system in order to crunch the tax information.
... more "spin" from the Happy Face Conspiracy ...
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 04, 1999
wow!self-reported compliancy statements!wow!why use third-party when self reporting makes the smiley face even bigger!WOW!
-- zoobie (email@example.com), June 04, 1999.
Apart from your sarcastic dig, this sounds like good news indeed. Hope it holds up.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 04, 1999.
That's great news! Now there's only 349,975 clients to go!
-- dot (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 04, 1999.
Good news. Now, if everybody will get done too, I'll feel better.
I like the rather "off-hand" comment: "Payroll processing isn't the top priority for most corporate year 2000 programs....."
If it isn't, aren't taxes, auotmatic deposits and transfers, and automatic invest tracking going to suffer?
Not to mention the millions of workers who would definitely "prefer" to be paid correctly come next Jan and Feb.
THREE> If they "hard-coded" tax data now (end of May - at time of writing) that means they will still have to "back up" and do it again for these 25 clients (what about the other three hundred fifty-plus thousand?) when the rates are published.
The problem is actually only deferred, not solved. But it is good news - for those 25 clients. I hope the remaining 350,000 all have behave exactly alike and all have the same state and county rules - makes it easy to batch process, doesn't it? 8<)
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (email@example.com), June 04, 1999.
Well, since two different people said, "OK, so they did it for a few, but that leaves the rest of the 350,000" ... so I guess some of you actually believe this.
The tests were DELIBERATELY done with the largest clients because, if it can be demonstrated that their Y2K interace works with them, it will certainly work with the remaining smaller ones.
I shouldn't have to point out something so obvious, but I guess I do.
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 04, 1999.
I think you misread this small chunk of the article (see the entire article in this week's Computerworld).
What they actually did was substitute the most current tax information for next year's, since they don't yet have the new tax law changes for next year. This doesn't postpone anything, nor does it invalidate anything they've done. Payroll systems must be modified a little bit every year anyway, there's no way around it. Most such systems are written to isolate tax law changes as much as possible, so that code rewrites are kept to an absolute minimum year to year.
As Stephen points out, the largest customers are likely to have the widest variation in cases and requirements, and therefore exercise the maximum amount of code for the test. The same code applies to *all* clients.
As for self-reporting, well, the 'self' here is ADP and 25 large companies who depend on them. Their goal here is to get it *right*, not to hide what's wrong. Their business depends on timely and accurate processing, not on doing things wrong but keeping it a secret in order to vindicate a few paranoids. Sheesh.
-- Flint (email@example.com), June 04, 1999.
This is GOOD news. If we can only get the other300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 business in the world up to speed, you might be right after all! Just a bump in the road.
-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), June 04, 1999.
The thought was expressed that if it works for the 25 largest clients, then it MUST work for the other 349,975! Sorry, but I must beg to differ. Payroll, especially in Union environments, has unique features. Similarly, many companies have company specific retirement plans, bonus plans, etc. As an experienced DP professional (including EDP auditor), I do not believe that nearly enough has been tested to form the conclusion that even a majority of the clients will be properly serviced.
-- Mad Monk (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 05, 1999.
Payroll, especially in Union environments, has unique features. Similarly, many companies have company specific retirement plans, bonus plans, etc.
This is true. The 25 largest companies tested would have presented the GREATEST EXERCISE OF THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS. Look at the names of some of these companies -- many of whom have both union and non-union shops, most (if not all) of whom have INTERSTATE BUSINESS (and EACH STATE HAS DIFFERENT WITHOLDING AND RULES), and so on ... and so on ... I think most of us with common sense can see that it was a pretty darned effective test, hmmm? :)
As an experienced DP professional (including EDP auditor), I do not believe that nearly enough has been tested to form the conclusion that even a majority of the clients will be properly serviced.
And you are entitled to that belief. But ADP and its clients are satisfied ... and so are most people.
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (email@example.com), June 05, 1999.