For the federal government, the beginning of Fiscal Year 2000 is still Oct 1, 1999, isn't it?

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), June 16, 1999

Answers

YUP

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), June 16, 1999.

I posted this near the bottom of the original Horn post, and I have not recieved a response. I thought it might have gotten buried, so I've decided to repost it here:

______________________________________________________________________

First of all, I am not trying to spin this report. This is just one possible interpretation, and I am pretty sure many will disagree with it. So be it. That is your right. All I ask is you keep an open mind. Question: How are you interpreting the term "compliant" on the scorecard? Renovated? Renovated and tested? Renovated, tested and implemented? This is the key question. In earlier reports it seems the term specified the last: renovated, tested, and implemented.

If this is still the case, I believe the majority are in pretty good shape. This could also explain the slipping percentages from 93-90, 93-92, etc. from March to May as systems thought to be compliant are implemented, have problems, and are re-renovated and re-tested.

The additional criteria and testing among all business partners is good, but the hard work for many of the agencies, the actual code repair, testing and implementation, seems to be done. If they can actually coordinate the integrated testing with all the program partners, I will honestly be astonished.

Remember, the term "ready" for the "High Impact" programs includes testing with all the program partners and the development and testing (I assume, because what good is an untested contingency plan) of contingency plans.

This is my interpretation, and I value your comments.

-- newlurker (bcobur@yahoo.com), June 16, 1999.

The Horn report card at first glance looks like it might be good news. Fourteen departments/agencies are 100% "compliant" as of May 14: SSA, NRC, HUD, Education, GSA, FEMA, NSF, OPM, EPA, VA, Labor, SBA, Interior & State. Overall total for mission-critical systems is 94% compliant by May.

On the other hand, a 100,000 line "system" is one system, and so is a 10 million line "system." How many lines of code in the 6% left, compared to the 94% done? Its almost impossible to tell what the true status is without more details. Did they do the easy systems first, or the hard ones?

Good question, newlurker, as to what exactly they mean by "compliant." It seems to exclude contingency plans, telecom systems, embedded systems, external data change and verification efforts, which are for many agencies marked "in progress," even if 100% compliance is claimed. In what sense are systems compliant if verification efforts are still ongoing?

Even more odd, the Education department claims 100% compliance, but the Student Aid program is scheduled to be "ready" in September 1999. HUD claims 100% compliance, but has 5 programs scheduled to be ready from September 1999 to "unknown." Interior claims 100% compliance, but its Bureau of Indian Affairs programs have an unknown ready date. Labor claims 100% compliance, but Unemployment Insurance is scheduled to be ready in December 1999. Similarly for the Office of Personnel Management, the State Department and Veterans Affairs.

Ah, heres the clue: Footnote 1 says "Programs were deemed ready if agencies reported that operational tests among all business partners systems were complete and if business continuity and contingency plans had been developed." So the 100% compliance apparently refers to internal systems, while the part that is "unready" is the external systems and the end-to-end testing. Which basically means a) a "compliant" mission-critical system doesnt mean its "ready" to deliver the goods, and b) many of these 100% "compliant" agencies have a heck of a lot more work to do.

I note with interest that Medicaid is scheduled to be done in December 1999. And Medicare apparently wasnt willing to give the Horn subcommittee a scheduled completion date at all. I wonder how many of the grunts on these projects think theyll make it.

-- Alan Rushby (arushby@my-yahoo.com), June 16, 1999.