Snitched from GICC.

Technology Experts Maintain Importance after Y2K

Source: Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News

Publication date: 2000-08-01

Aug. 1--Information technology experts were in their glory last year. Congress, company executives and the public were clamoring for their help with the Y2K bug.

Techies, who had long lived in the background, suddenly had star power. They were the only ones who could stomp the Y2K bug, a massive threat to computing.

They worked overtime to fix software that might be unable to recognize the year 2000 in computers' internal clocks.

Just as quickly as they rose to prominence, after the New Year came and went with hardly a ripple, many dropped out of sight like exterminators after the bugs are gone.

Although many have faded from view, what they did with Y2K has not faded from many people's minds. Thus it had an important consequence beyond just fixing the Year 2000 problem.

The Y2K phenomenon drew the notice of people who'd never considered the importance of computer systems in elevators, the 911 system and cars.

It forced business and government users to update their data systems and underscored the importance of keeping up with the latest in information technology.

"It broadened information technology, and the potential risks of technological failure, to a much larger audience," said Dale Vecchio, a director at the Gartner Group, a technology research firm in Stamford, Conn. "Y2K was probably the biggest boom for risk-management contingency planning that we have ever seen."

Gartner gained fame by offering some of the first estimates of the astronomical amount of money that would be needed to resolve Y2K.

He and others from his firm spent years following the bug and speaking to executives about the potential threat to their computer systems.

"Having tracked it for five years, I've seen all of it I care to see," Vecchio said.

Yet he acknowledges that the impact of the computer bug is still echoing through industry because more attention is being paid to technology.

Y2K's peculiarity captured the public's imagination.

"As crazy as the problem was, it was an educational experience," Vecchio said. "There are not many times you can look at a problem that impacted the entire planet."

Canadian Peter de Jager was also among the contingent spreading the word about the year 2000 bug. He is credited with bringing the potential problem to the attention of corporate America.

He ran a Y2K compliance Web site at www.year2000.com and led an online discussion group with about 45,000 people. Last year the audiences he spoke before included the U.S. Senate, the Treasury Board of Canada and a group of Silicon Valley high-tech firms.

As a result, he's been typecast as the "Y2K guy."

"It made us very visible. While that was good in order to create awareness of the problem, it takes a while to be known again as what you were doing before," said de Jager, whose focus is now helping companies manage technological change.

De Jager said his and other consultants' high profiles have been good for their industry, although he's glad to put the year 2000 bug behind him.

Because of the efforts of experts like him, information technology -- once described as the corporate garage -- became the corporate darling.

Y2K prompted governments and corporations worldwide to pour more than $300 billion into solving Y2K problems, Vecchio said. With the coffers open, technology managers had the opportunity to push their projects through, and computer-system consulting firms had more business than ever.

Chase was one of the many companies that used its Y2K project to clean up its information technology system. In 1999, the company spent about $158 million on Y2K-related projects, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"It allowed the technicians to have some funds to do things that it probably wouldn't have, had it not had the attention of Y2K," said Henry Gonzalez, a vice president at Chase Bank of Texas in Houston and a director of the company's Year 2000 programming efforts in the Southwest. "It cost the organization some money, but it will benefit us in the long term."

Gonzalez said his department was able to toss out and update old programs.

Small information technology companies have also been able to capitalize on the attention Y2K brought to their industry.

Houston-based IS&T Staffing Group made fixing Y2K bugs its forte last year. Companies that did not have the technology staff to address Y2K hired companies like IS&T.

Last year, the company's consultants were in high demand, said Tony Pannagl, managing partner at IS&T.

Now Pannagl's firm has gone from fixing bugs to installing and maintaining new software, which has been lucrative. The name recognition the company got during Y2K has helped it gain contracts, he said.

Those contracts have come at a time when e-business is information technology's hot topic. It and other information technology applications that were put on the back burner during year-2000 preparations are now getting industry's full attention.

"Y2K caused more people to pay more attention to technology," Vecchio said. "They are trying to leverage what they learned to try to catch up with the one- or two-year lull of Y2K."

Even de Jager's year2000.com Web site has had to adapt. The site is going through a major renovation. It advises visitors who "have become digital warriors on an electronic battlefield" that it will be coming back later this summer with information about electronic commerce and the Internet.

In the meantime, de Jager is pushing a newsletter called Beyond Year 2000.

-----

To see more of the Houston Chronicle, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.chron.com

http://realcities.newsreal.com/pages/realcities/Story.nsp?story_id=12497509&site=charlotte&ID=realcities&scategory=Business+and+Finance

Y2K spending

The amount of money companies spent to combat the Y2K bug varied widely, partly because of the different means used to estimate the expense. For example, some included personnel costs, while others did not. Here's a sampling of what some local corporations said they spent.

Company Amount Compaq Computer Corp. $125 million American General Corp. $98 million Conoco $42 million Reliant Energy $29 million Continental Airlines $20 million Source: Securities and Exchange Commission filings http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/business/622002

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 02, 2000

Answers

-- Black Adder (BlackAdder@sting.com), August 02, 2000.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 02, 2000.

Thanks hmmm

> Unfortunately, the proper measure of the potential damage from the >failure of these systems has not been taken. Nor has the full impact of the >Mid Tier Companies who absolutely do not have the money to fix their systems >been evaluated. When that begins to surface there may well be panic in the >streets long before the Year 2000.

link

-- Black Adder (BlackAdder@sting.com), August 02, 2000.

HINT: I WROTE THAT IN:

1996 NOT 2000 WHEN PCS WERE STILL $2-3,000/BOX!!!! I POSTED REPEATEDLY IN 1998-2000 THAT PCS WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 02, 2000.

Charles Reuben. Ranking of problem:

June 1998- 8.0. August 1998- 7.2. October 1998- 7.0. December 1998- 7.0. January 1999- 6.7. February 1999- 6.7. March 1999- 5.5. April 1999- 3.5 to 4.5. May 1999- 2.0 to 3.5. June 1999- 1.5 to 2.5. July 1999- 1.0 to 2.0. August 1999- 1.0 to 1.5. September 1999- 0.9999. October 1999- 0.75. November 1999- 0.5.

link December 1999- 0.5. B.Sc. (Physics,Chemistry,Biology), M.A.(Mathematics), Businessman,Dallas ..programs in 9 languages has been working with Computers for 20 years..

-- Black Adder (BlackAdder@sting.com), August 02, 2000.

December 1999- 0.5.

Looks like he was right.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 02, 2000.

June 1998- 8.0

-- Black Adder (BlackAdder@sting.com), August 02, 2000.

December 1999 - 0.5.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 02, 2000.

So, Mr. Reuben, it's perfectly all right for you to pound the dead horses of others who used to be on the pessimistic side, but when someone digs up your old nag's skeleton for a tap or too, that's not?

I can understand that the death threats upped your emotional involvement, but think your PTSD could be better dealt with in more conventional group therapy than it can be here.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 02, 2000.

FACT: I **MODIFIED** MY VIEWS AS THE ***FACTS BECAME CLEAR***.

YOURDON, NORTH and HYATT DID NOT. Nor did their BRAIN WASHED FOLLOWERS LIKE YOU.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 02, 2000.

AND.........SPAM...BTW: Who says its "dead horse"? Hyatt insists on his web site Y2k is still going on with his "glitch page" and daily Y2k news. NOT TO MENTION............................."THE PAULA".

THE CRUDE PUBLIC HYPING OF A BUSINESS PROBLEM BY SHARKS AND POLITICIANS, RELIGIOSO **NUT BAGS LIKE NORTH** AND HAS BEENS LIKE THE FOUNDER OF STENCH BOMB I .....MISLEAD MANY, MANY PEOPLE. NOW THEY SPEND THEIR TIME ........LIKE YOU......PLAYING "DODGE BALL". MY MESSAGE HAS BEEN **CONSISTENT FOR 4 YEARS** : There was a big job to be done and people got on with the job. After the data was clear by late 1998 the work was being done, PUBLIC FUD AND FEAR MONGERING KEPT THE ISSUE GOING.......aided and abetted by the NET and IDIOTS LIKE YOU and other WAFFLE WEASALS WHO REFUSED TO STAND UP TO THE FUD MONGERERS.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 02, 2000.

This has GOT TO be one of CPR's looniest threads ... a real "creeper keeper"!

Ya gotta admire CreePeR's stamina...

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 03, 2000.

Propaganda is nice, but the real cost of Y2K was in the neighborhood of $1 trillion worldwide.

-- (very@expensive.mistake), August 03, 2000.

...BRAIN WASHED FOLLOWERS LIKE YOU... NOW THEY SPEND THEIR TIME LIKE YOU......PLAYING "DODGE BALL".... IDIOTS LIKE YOU and other WAFFLE WEASALS WHO REFUSED TO STAND UP TO THE FUD MONGERERS..... -- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 02, 2000

Charles, flattery will get you nowhere.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), August 03, 2000.

LoL... can you see it?... 10 years from now creeper will still be doing his Y2k shickt... some old saws really never do get old :-)

-- Mr. Slippery (slip@slide.cum), August 03, 2000.

There was a big job to be done and people got on with the job.

B-b-but Charlie, I thought you were implying up above that most of the money allegedly spent on Y2K was used as a cover for upgrades -- that it wasn't a big job.

After the data was clear by late 1998 the work was being done, PUBLIC FUD AND FEAR MONGERING KEPT THE ISSUE GOING.......

Most organizations in the U.S. had started by late 1998. It was not clear then that all the work here would be finished in time. And many of the world's countries didn't start their Y2K projects until 1999.

The status of Y2K in late 1998.

-- (keeping@Charlie.honest), August 03, 2000.

(Corrected URL)

The status of Y2K in late 1998

http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/y2k_report/Isummary.htm

-- (keeping@Charlie.honest), August 03, 2000.

CPR,

I will always have beans!

I just don't trust people like you.

...Period.....

You don't seem to care.

-- awake (troll@beans.com), August 03, 2000.

To "keeping Charlie honest":

Charles changes his basic position a lot. About two moths ago he responded to a thread DEMANDING that someone come up with one single organization that couldn't have handled Y2K with fix on failure. As Dave Barry would say, I am not makng this up.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), August 03, 2000.

That is exactly correct. I do change my views as FACTS EMERGE...............unlike CONSTIPATED THINKERS LIKE YOU who are still trying to "prove" they were "right" to go OVER-BOARD ON Y2k and were encouraged to do so by people like YOURDON, NORTH, HYATT and worse.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 03, 2000.

And "keeping" YOU NEED A **KEEPER**.

The Doomzies would be the first people to reject anything from DC if it did not agree with their objectives. Like the Idiot "Kevin Mixed Up Music Linkmeister posting OLD and DATED REPORTS MEANT NOTHING WHEN 1/1/2000 rolled by NEGATING even the moderates worries about Y2k.

The SENATE/HOUSE reports were OLD AND DATED WHEN RELEASED. The March,1999 one itself was based on info from Fall, 1999 and Bennett admitted the "GAO and OMB report age were problems".

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 03, 2000.

correct that to the Senate report of March 1999 was based on info from Fall, 1998 (not the typo).

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 03, 2000.

CPR posted these amounts:

Compaq Computer Corp. $125 million American General Corp. $98 million Conoco $42 million Reliant Energy $29 million Continental Airlines $20 million Source: Securities and Exchange Commission filings http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/business/622002

You know, I've worked in technology consulting for a long time, and those amounts, while they may *seem* huge, really aren't all that big for large-scale technology projects. I've been on several projects where my firm billed the client over a million dollars a *month* for personnel and travel expenses, and I've never even worked for one of the Big Five consultancies. In fact, the Big Five charge *more* per consultant-hour, and they pile as many consultants onto a project as they can.

The Amgen and Compaq project price tags seem large to me, but the Conoco, Reliant and Continental bills seem pretty much in line with what I've seen billed for large corporate projects in the past.

Here's a sample breakdown. Assume we have 40 consultants on a project in New York City. They work 40 hours a week apiece, and all have to travel some distance (by air) to get there.

Per consultant, the weekly cost is:

$164 per diem ($42 per day for 4 days) $800 hotel room (for four days, if you're lucky) $150 hotel/airport cab/limo charges (weekly) $300 R/T airfare (some will pay more, others less) $6000

-- Lurkinator (Lurky.formerly@yahoo.com), August 04, 2000.

My mistake; let's try again.

CPR posted these amounts:

Compaq Computer Corp. $125 million American General Corp. $98 million Conoco $42 million Reliant Energy $29 million Continental Airlines $20 million Source: Securities and Exchange Commission filings http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/business/622002

You know, I've worked in technology consulting for a long time, and those amounts, while they may *seem* huge, really aren't all that big for large-scale technology projects. I've been on several projects where my firm billed the client over a million dollars a *month* for personnel and travel expenses, and I've never even worked for one of the Big Five consultancies. In fact, the Big Five charge *more* per consultant-hour, and they pile as many consultants onto a project as they can.

The Amgen and Compaq project price tags seem large to me, but the Conoco, Reliant and Continental bills seem pretty much in line with what I've seen billed for large corporate projects in the past.

Here's a sample breakdown. Assume we have 40 consultants on a project in New York City. They work 40 hours a week apiece, and all have to travel some distance (by air) to get there.

Per consultant, the weekly cost is:

$164 per diem ($42 per day for 4 days) $800 hotel room (for four days, if you're lucky) $150 hotel/airport cab/limo charges (weekly) $300 R/T airfare (some will pay more, others less) $6000 $150/hour consulting fee x40 hours $7414 per week, per consultant.

$296560 Weekly charge for 40 consultants.

$1.334,520 4.5 weeks/Monthly charge for the consultants.

You can see how the numbers add up, especially for big corporate jobs.

Any discussion?

-- Lurkinator (Lurky.formerly@yahoo.com), August 04, 2000.

Thanks. One of the very first anti-North posts I put on De Jager's lists (and others) showed that the cost of Y2k for several of the biggest banks was PEANUTS vs. their profits and their net worth. Never did Formerly Scary Gary or Yourdon or anyone of the experts address the issue of **Y2k as a percentage of I.T. spending**. Later, after beating on Leon Kappelman, he finally had to admit that Y2k worked out to between 8-12% and that was only after his ludicrous posts about a range of zero to 4.25 per line of code with an average of $1.10. It was clear from just that the "standard distribution curve" didn't apply and there was no rhyme or reason to Y2k spending.

Now we have some data that suggests that FROM THE BEGINNING NICK Z. was correct. Y2k I.T. spending was used as a "ruse" to get the work done that was long put off during the 1985-1995 time frame thanks to the recession and the "downsizings" etc.

When History looks at the I.T. side of things, I think it will be clear that from 1995 on, the MONEY SPENT FOR THE NET and E- implementations will exceed ANYTHING spent by ANYONE for Y2k.

Y2k was "maintenance" BLOWN WAY OUT OF PROPORTION by a few vendors and the MORONS aided by the net. IBM /UNISYS/C.A. and all the REAL PLAYERS ramped Y2k DOWN on the Marketing side by early 1998 (not 1999. 98).

The rest was HYPE by Techno-ILLITERATES AND LIBERAL ARTS MAJORS who wouldn't know a bit from a byte but were absolute artists at "generalizations" and "scenarios". They all should go to Hollywood as writers of SCI FI.

Mike Collins discusses this best. LINK

http://www.aleae.com/rollover/

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 04, 2000.

Now we have some data that suggests that FROM THE BEGINNING NICK Z. was correct. Y2k I.T. spending was used as a "ruse" to get the work done that was long put off during the 1985-1995 time frame thanks to the recession and the "downsizings" etc.

Cute, CPR. Now you're only this far away from saying it didn't really need to be fixed.

-- (beware@of.revisionists), August 05, 2000.

MY MESSAGE HAS BEEN **CONSISTENT FOR 4 YEARS** : There was a big job to be done and people got on with the job.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003bCg

-- Another (quote@from.CPR), August 05, 2000.

Y2k was "maintenance" BLOWN WAY OUT OF PROPORTION by a few vendors and the MORONS aided by the net.

-- Will the real cpr (please@stand.up), August 05, 2000.

Charles Reuben. Ranking of problem:

June 1998- 8.0.

He seemingly did not know at that point that it was a simple maintenance project.

-- the many (faces@of.CPR), August 05, 2000.

IBM /UNISYS/C.A. and all the REAL PLAYERS ramped Y2k DOWN on the Marketing side by early 1998 (not 1999. 98).

-- Examine (the@CPR.chronology), August 05, 2000.

...I do change my views as FACTS EMERGE...............unlike CONSTIPATED THINKERS LIKE YOU... Y2k was "maintenance" BLOWN WAY OUT OF PROPORTION by a few vendors and the MORONS aided by the net... The rest was HYPE by Techno-ILLITERATES AND LIBERAL ARTS MAJORS who wouldn't know a bit from a byte... / that sweet-talking creeper (again and again and again and again...)

Okay. But we still ain't gonna go to bed with you.

-- Constipated Thinker (Moron@Techno.Illiterates), August 05, 2000.