These Y2K archives are maintained by Alan Simpson for study by students.
|
From the Back Rowby David Eddy I was lucky to get a back row seat for the February 24, 1997 Horn subcommittee Year 2000 (Y2K) hearing, since it appeared that many hopefuls were turned away at the door. I'm torn between competing feelings as to what I can honestly say. One on hand, clearly the senior managers making the presentations (testimony) were well intentioned. And on the other hand, as a life long developer, I could read between the lines as to how little substantive facts management had in its hands. The fact is that senior managers simply do not stand up in public and say "I don't know." The bottom line is that what I saw and heard unfortunately reinforces my belief that the communications chasm between the technical folks in the engine room and the managers on the flag bridge is as deep and wide as ever. More succinctly, in the words of management guru Peter Drucker: "As information flows up and down the organizational layers, figure on halving the content and doubling the noise at each layer." The cries of "we desperately need help" in the engine room, is heard as "things are well in hand" in mahogany row after being passed thru multiple layers of management filters. While this hearing was strictly focused on internal government agencies, quite frankly if I'd had my eyes closed and heard "Mr Smith, CIO of XYZ Corp" instead of "Mr Smith, CIO of ABC Agency", the message would have been precisely the same... a lot of pleasant sounding, fuzzy words that (at least to my admittedly cynical ears) say senior management is soundly asleep on the Y2K issue. Under normal circumstances there are three distinct economic sectors---commercial, government and defense---that co-exist at arms length and go about their business with their own distinctly bizarre bureaucratic rituals. However, back office "administrivia" paper pushing systems, the glue that holds together the modern enterprise (private and public sector), are the same everywhere regardless of what they do---order a train load of ammunition or execute stock market trades. These systems have been put into place over many decades and what they do and how they do it is typically a mystery to even the organizations that depend on them for their daily activities. Periodic attempts to replace these legacy systems, which span multiple internal and external organizations, are far easier to talk about than to actually make happen. So, while it's all very well to hear warm platitudes of encouragement about plans and intentions from senior managers, what it really shows me is how far removed from the reality of software systems is senior management. In one dimension Y2K is a massive maintenance problem and we all know that it's far easier to sell the dream of replacing old systems with gleaming new ones, despite what the track record (80% failure rate for large systems in the MIS sector, where success is defined as on-time, on budget and with promised functionality) says. So Where Are We? From where I sit, with my 27 years of software experience, a business school education, and almost three years as a tool vendor in the Y2K marketplace, I clearly see that the vast majority of organizations, regardless of their economic sector, are simply spinning their wheels. The opposing camps---management versus technical---are just digging in their heals and glaring at each other. [On a positive note, I do know of organizations that have good communications and are getting on with the job, but these are the exception.] Management is stunned at the information (largely very conflicting) they get and is still trying to figure out what to do. Senior technical people are frustrated that management is not redirecting resources and issuing marching orders in the face of this very clear and present danger. Currently we have no idea which organizations are most important nor where they are in their Y2K preparedness. Right now we're dependent upon the subjective statements of organizations, with clearly very little factual information at their command, telling us "Trust us, we'll be done in time." Personally, I do not find this to be acceptable. I also don't find a whole lot of difference in the messages coming from the three sectors. What Is to Be Done? We need to create a process whereby organizations have their systems formally audited. Currently there are only a few individuals and tools capable of realistically conducting such audits. Hithertofore a small set of specialized consulting firms have conducted such audits over a period of several months. This process must be reduced to a matter of weeks plus the skill sets must be cloned on a huge scale. The teams must be expanded and the tools and common procedures tested under full stress. In the hopes of rapidly determining where organizations are in their Y2K preparedness I propose that Y2K Tiger Teams (or SWAT teams) be formed to quickly (in 5 to 10 working days) conduct initial inventory and impact analysis tasks. The sites visited would pay commercial rates for these 'Y2K audits'. Any site big enough to have a mainframe should be required to have such an audit. [How to legally make this happen QUICKLY is clearly one of the significant weak points of this idea.] Such audits (of the software systems at least) would hopefully serve to:
Depending upon the results of the first audit, a site would be revisited sooner or later in order to determine if sufficient forward progress is being made. For companies/sites that fail to make timely progress, contingency plans must be drawn up. At this very late date, I find it completely unacceptable that both private and public officials are continuing to make statements to the effect that "Trust us, we have the situation well in hand." when in fact they have no idea about their situation. In my experience, it has taken the best of organizations 12 to 18 months to shift significant focus to their Y2K situation. Organizations just starting now (which is what Monday's testimony indicated to me) simply don't have 18 months to begin to warm up their engines. Sorry... that's how I see it. David Eddy deddy@davideddy.com © 1997 David Eddy |
