Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Y2K

    Posted 12-17-1999 19:20
    Information:

    "Bad decisions" - someone has suggested that not updating computer
    systems to be Y2K compliant when the issue "first came up several years
    ago" - was a bad decision.

    I have been associated with the computer field since 1954, and I can tell
    you from firsthand experience that it "first came up" DECADES ago! It
    has not been a cost issue; it is a planning issue--a use-of-resources
    issue. People who are responsible for computers are always running
    behind; there is always more expected of them than they can possibly
    produce (the using community is still not sufficiently educated to what
    computers can really do for them). Every time anyone has wanted to deal
    with the 2000 issue, they were laughed out of the room; there were too
    many more pressing issues.

    "How did these CIOs, COOs, and CEOs expect to stay functional at the turn
    of the year 2000 with systems that would send the calculations back to
    2000?" Answer: They didn't. The year 2000 was too far away; there were
    more pressing issues. There is always someone who has a lot of
    organizational clout who is pushing for something--something that
    requires the resources available. In the 1950s, anyone who suggested
    that we spend time "getting ready" for Y2K would have been laughed out of
    the room. We are still not caught up with the demand. Only when
    something becomes critical is it attended to.

    Please, get a perspective on this. Learn about computer systems, the
    history. No one is to "blame" here. It's part of our current situation.
    Sort of like road rage. People are in a hurry. People don't want to
    stop and think. People want results. Until now, Y2K was not important.
    Now those same impatient people want to know why those CEOs were so
    stupid.

    Edryce