An interesting article by Ian Hugo on Westergaard today. I think he nailed the reason we haven't seen a lot of failures so far this year......

I proposed that the most likely victims would be large organizations that were late in starting Y2K programs, if these could be known. The reasoning behind this assertion was simply that most large programs comprise multiple large projects which, given sufficient time, can be scheduled so that their completion dates are staggered within the ultimate deadline. This allows contingency time between the scheduled completion time of one project and that of the next. Large and late programs have to be telescoped into the time available, with all completion dates falling within a short period. The latter thus have much greater potential for overlapping failures.

As to when the beginning of the failure curve might become discernable, I suggested the middle of this year. That prediction was based upon the assumption that large and late programs would be in the implementation phase as from June this year.As to when the beginning of the failure curve might become discernable, I suggested the middle of this year. That prediction was based upon the assumption that large and late programs would be in the implementation phase as from June this year.

Reasoning Revisited

Since the time I started this line of reasoning, slightly less than a year ago, I have had some opportunity to reflect upon it. Nothing I have thought of since has caused me to change the line of reasoning.

However, I have had cause to reconsider my thoughts on timing. Just about every organization I communicate with, even those with very well managed programs, is late in delivery. To that extent, I believe I may have missjudged the time at which late implementations would be attempted and at which congestion would occur. I predicted the build-up of congestion as beginning from June and now think that may be too early, by about a quarter. It can occur earlier (in fact has done so; see below) but congestion for purely Y2K reasons, if it occurs, I now believe will occur later. Paradoxically, since I was originally arguing against a focus on 01.01.2000, if my timing prediction is now to correct the effects will be seen most visibly around the change of century, even though the causes precede that date.

The result of my current revisions is that I think the failure curve I originally drew should stand as regards its shape but be moved forward in time by about three months.

Link

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), August 25, 1999