http://cnniw.newsreal.com/cgi-bin/NewsService?osform_template=pages/cnniwStory&ID=cnniw&storypath=News/Story_1999_10_23.NRdb@2@18@3@143

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), October 25, 1999

Answers

By the way, that should have been GartnerGroup (no "s")

[snip]

Y2K Is Months Away, But Bugs Turning Up Now

Source: The Salt Lake Tribune

A lot of people are gearing up for a Y2K computer bug that will strike on New Year's Day, but it probably isn't going to happen that way.

According to the Gartner Group, only a small percentage of actual failures will occur with the change of the millennium. In fact, the pace of failures has picked up since Oct. 1, and will probably continue to rise into early next year.

"At this point, most companies can handle the increased failures, but just barely," said Lou Marcoccio, a research director for the Stamford, Conn.-based firm.

"The problem we have is that on Nov. 1, it will go higher and in December, dramatically higher," as computer programs come across more 2000 dates, he said.

The failure rate will probably stabilize in January, then drop off later in the year.

Companies that have had their systems remediated are still likely to have some failures, though far fewer than those organizations that have done nothing, Marcoccio said.

He recommended that organizations expand their Y2K contingency planning beyond the hours before and after New Year's Day.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), October 25, 1999.

It's a good thing I view Hoff as smarter than Gartner (I do, actually), else I might conclude that the Yourdon-despising Meister's function point analysis missed, shall we say, a few points along the way?

Unfortunately, this may be a case where Gartner is onto something.

We'll know if Flint has one of those ticks he talks about. I mean, upticks.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 25, 1999.

Naw, BigDog, the analysis accounted for these errors as well.

The problem with the GartnerGroup assessment is they didn't account for failures strictly due to system replacement and modifications.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 25, 1999.

Hoff -- Gartner/Meta are such politically-driven thoughtless animals that this wouldn't surprise me. But I'm not too keen on the apparently inside dope that most companies can "barely" handle the increased error load that has JUST shown up (hey, I thought your curves were wondrously smooth). Having worked at Meta, this says to me that their analysts have been getting LOTS of frightened phone calls, or this would NEVER have been mentioned publicly.

Then there is always that odd, little group of orgs (and countries) that haven't done jack.

I dunno, just call me a pessimist having one of those Yourdonite deja vu hallucinations. And pass the beans, please.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 25, 1999.

A couple of points about this item:

>>"At this point, most companies can handle the increased failures, but just barely," said Lou Marcoccio, a research director for the Stamford, Conn.-based firm. <<

I read the source article and couldn't find Marcoccio offering any evidence for this contention.

Seond, Link - you left out the last paragraph of the story:

"Gartner said system failures related to the computer glitch will probably cause only isolated problems for people in developed countries including the United States and in most of Western Europe."

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), October 25, 1999.

"Gartner said system failures related to the computer glitch will probably cause only isolated problems for people in developed countries including the United States and in most of Western Europe."

"Probably". "Isolated." "Developed countries".

The usual BS. Here is what I mean by that --

Either the simple English of the concerns about these companies is BS or the final sentence is BS. Having worked for the Meta Group, I can tell you that it's the final sentence.

This doesn't mean the Gartner Group is right. It could well be worse than they think.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 25, 1999.

Only experience with Gartner or Meta has been as a customer.

I have a hard time understanding why anyone having problems would be calling Gartner analysts; my experience with using Gartner is as a "frontend" analysis tool, and not as a "Fixit". Honestly, Gartner would be about last on the list to call if problems were occurring.

My Opinion Only, but this seems to be some CYA by Gartner. Not by this forums standards, but they have been pretty much the "Doomer" group on Y2k.

Not doubting that failures are occurring; virtually every survey indicates this fact. But the impact has been basically non-existent. Forget about whatever percentage of organizations that have done remediation; what about all those that supposedly haven't? Gartner is also on record as stating pre-rollover problems will likely have more impact than post-rollover.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 25, 1999.

Meta had a significant consultancy group that was fix-it, though I have no idea whether they did/do any Y2K remediation consulting.

I was referring to the endless two-way gossiping that goes on between analysts and clients, which includes lots of dish on what is going on "in-house" as well as hints from analysts on what is going on "elsewhere".

As for whether it is CYA, could be. EVERYTHING these guys do is CYA - I KID YOU NOT. But whether it is CYA because "nothing" is happening or CYA because TS is beginning to HTF -- stay tuned, as always.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 25, 1999.

Big Dog

Further to your thoughts about the "two way gossiping", I don't recall seeing many posts here from people saying that their company (or the company a spouse/friend etc. works at) is just barely keeping ahead of Y2K problems showing up now.

In contacts I've had with programmers up here in the Great White North I also not hearing about this type of situation occuring. I have heard people bitching about new systems going in, but to me that confirms Hoff's thesis that the sh*t is happening now (and has been for the past 18-24 months) and the rollover will be manageable.

I guess in the final analysis I find it hard to accept Gartner's assertion at face value - they don't provide any evidence themselves to support it, and the anecdotal and circumstantial evidence I see point to a different conclusion.

My $0.02....

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), October 25, 1999.

If nothing else, this article is certainly a tease. IS departments are barely keeping up? I would assume that they are always barely keeping up, after all, this is a JIT universe that we live in. How many people go to jobs where they are on top of everything? This article sounds like a bunch of unarguable BS which supports neither polly nor doomer positions.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), October 25, 1999.

One more thought - if IS departments are as stretched as Gartner seems to be intimating, wouldn't we be seeing a pick up in contractor maintenance work?

Maybe Anita can throw in her thoughts on this. Last I've read from her is that she and a good chunk of her contractor friends are sitting on their hands because the development freezes have starting kicking in big time. If problems are starting to happen, would it not make sense that some of these contractors would start to get work again?

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), October 25, 1999.

Too boring to rehash all the arguments about contractors. Cuts both ways. Whatever it means, this is the statement of someone who has heard something that makes him nervous:

"At this point, most companies can handle the increased failures, but just barely," said Lou Marcoccio, a research director for the Stamford, Conn.-based firm.

"Just barely" is the little tidbit pointing to something real. Leave that off and it IS merely the typical crap they've been spouting. This makes it somewhat more interesting crap.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 25, 1999.

It's the "just barely" that strikes me as CYA.

Sort of like, "well, it really is as bad as we said it was going to be, honest. No, you haven't seen any impact yet, but...".

Actually, I think these types of statements are going to multiply by leaps and bounds next year.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 25, 1999.

Of course this is all just opinion at this point, but Hoff to me it looks like "...just barely" is a supportable opinion. IOW if someone asks Gartner to qualify the remark either now or in the future that it would be easy to classify their proof as either true or false.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 26, 1999.

Having been involved in due date slipping ( sliding etc) projects, the rent-a-bodies don't come in at the end of the phase, because they have SUCH a LONG learning curve REGARDLESS of the project that the IS department simply stands up and takes it on the chin, re-plans the project as a new one and THEN asks for rental talent. AFTER they have made a mess of their pants, beds, and departments.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 26, 1999.