Here is a general question: If, here in the latter part of 1999, an organization such as MCI -- which as their SEC statements show, is STILL not Y2K compliant, just working real hard to be ON TRACK to get there by the end of the year, etc., etc. -- has a problem due to a "non-Y2K" event (for the sake of argument), does this not act to consume vital resources and endanger meeting the immovable deadline of Jan 1, 2000?

Many times, if you read the polly responses to the recent telecomm, power, problems (including exploding plants), the stock answer is that it is "not Y2K related". OK, assuming for the moment that is technically true (and man, you have to admire places like MCI that apparently, in spite of still not being finished with Y2K work, wanted to upgrade just to give their customers new whiz-bang features! -- right, LOL), WHAT EFFECT WILL THIS HAVE ON THE Y2K EFFORT AT LARGE????? (Like, maybe, will it cause deadlines that have clearly run out of "wiggle room" to be MISSED? The horror, the horror.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 15, 1999

Answers

KoS,

Maybe yes, maybe no. Your comments imply that organizations still working hard on achieving Y2K readiness are devoting 100% of their technical resources to the task. Surveys last year indicated that most organizations were only devoting 25-30% of their people and IT budgets to Y2K repairs. The figure is probably higher this year, but I doubt if it's more than 50%. The other 50% are doing "business as usual," or looking for ways to create new products, new markets, new services, etc.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), August 15, 1999.

"The figure is probably higher this year, but I doubt if it's more than 50%. The other 50% are doing "business as usual," or looking for ways to create new products, new markets, new services, etc" Ed.

That's a mind-boggling statement Ed. If indeed they are devoting only 50% of their IT personel to y2k, they are greedily betting the farm, aren't they? Wouldn't a smarter competitive strategy be to ensure company survavibility past the roll-over and hope for competitors to stumble and fall? If all companies prioritize on survivability and no new development, then the playing field remains level until the roll-over. In their dog eat dog world, competitive greed overwhelms logic it seems to me.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 15, 1999.

But Chris.....you're implying that they GI in order to form a business plan which would take advantage of the unavoidable situation. I'm not convinced most DO.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 15, 1999.

What? Are you implying that all organizations: 1) Did not recognize the problem in a timely manner?
2) Did not start early?
3) Did not devote all necessary resources (and then some) to ensure that the problem was licked well before the deadline?
4) Might not make it?

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), August 15, 1999.

Brooks Law: "Throwing more manpower at a late project only serves ake it later."

They can't speed things up right now even if they wanted to.

-- Jim (x@x.x), August 16, 1999.