Y2K Failures Persist Says CapGemini Study

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

If this has already been discussed here, please disregard, but I haven't seen it before and thought it would be worth posting.

"Y2K Failures Persist"

The Cap Gemini America survey finds that more than 4 out of 5 (82 percent) of large firms have experienced a "Year 2000-related failure," up from 75 percent last quarter. Fifty-six percent of the failures were caused by systems that had not yet been upgraded or replaced, and 44 percent were caused by systems that have already been remediated.

The most common failures have involved "financial miscalculation or loss" (95 percent), followed by "processing disruiptions" (92 percent), "logistics/supply chain problems" (36 percent), and customer service problems (33 percent). Two percent report Year 2000-related "business disruptions.


Found it under Press Release - 100 Days...

-- Rasty (Rasty@bulldoggg.xcom), October 20, 1999


Yup, exactly correct. Now it is what we deduce from this article that is imiportant..........

It is proof that ALTHOUGH we have already, and will continue to suffer from computer glitches, life goes on........workarounds are found........

Expect many more problems particularly in the first few months of next year, and also expect many more solutions, patches and workarounds that will keep us functioning with minimum disruption.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), October 20, 1999.

Craig, that's the polly position, anyway. Who knows what will REALLY happen when we get into "realtime" 2000. If it's bad, you'll be eating crow.

-- Ohio Bob (ohiobob@buckeyestate.com), October 20, 1999.

Look at it this way. Say that I have a library with 1000 programs, and 10% of those do some sort of date processing. If only 1 of those 100 programs fail, then my company has had a Y2K failure. What about the other 99 programs, that don't do any look ahead, and depend on today's date? How many of those will "fail" on 1/1, or generate "bad data" and cause problems at month-end, 1/31?

Everyone here knows my favorite saying. It ain't Y2K yet, and I stand by it. The number of programs that do look ahead processing is tiny, when compared to the total number of mainframe, PC, mid-range and embedded systems that have a date problem.

These early failures are not good news. They are the tip of the iceberg.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 20, 1999.

Most failures so far have been in accounting or financial forecasting software. Almost all non-accounting software problems, PC BIOS chip and PC operating system problems, and embedded system/process control system problems are still ahead of us. Those are the ones with the potential of being "show-stoppers."

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), October 20, 1999.

In my opinion the Y2K bug is an extra variable that is affecting things already worldwide.

So before the majority of places started to experience Y2K problems and only had normal everyday disruptions then I would classify that as minimum disruptions.

Now places are having Y2K disruptions on top of their normal everyday disruptions so to me I would classify that as 'above minimum disruptions'.

Just think on how much productivity has been lost and money used this year alone that would have normally gone to other things.

We are feeling the effects of Y2K disruptions already, they are affecting the way we live, what we can get hold of and numerous other instances. This is all happening now however because the disruptions have been slowly increasing over a long period of time it is hardly noticeable. Exactly the same as if your brakes start failing over a long period of time it is hardly noticeable, one day they suddenly stop working altogether or you spend your hard earned cash to get them fixed before they cause you to slam into a brick wall and 50 mph.

Regards, Simon

-- Simon Richards (simon@wair.com.au), October 20, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ