y2k - taking a chances

Daniel Adam

y2k - taking a chances
This is repost, original I think haven't got through.

> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to hear from you guys, during the y2k readiness efforts, how
> many of you had to cope with software that is labeled by it's producent as
> being NOT READY. Specifically, is anyone outthere working for company
> where they use so old versions that are not supported anymore. Did any of
> the shops preferred not upgrading to y2k ready versions, but rather do the
> y2k testing and save the money ? Specifically I'm interested in financial
> institutions.
>
> This sound probably very strange, but I just got hold of the list of ( our
> customer ) software and realized that all but one compnents are not y2k
> ready, not even suported anymore. They apparently rely on their own
> testing, plus consultants' attest. Even with all the money for the
> upgrades, I think it's not feasable to buy, test and make all the
> transitions to a new y2k-ready versions in time. Not that they chose that
> path, they are not willing to shell that kind of money - they probably
> didn't upgrade the software for years. It's getting pretty hot around here
> these days.
>
> Thanks for any comments
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> Daniel Adam
> Gratex International
> [login to unmask email]
> www.gratex.sk
>

Gavin Hogan

y2k - taking a chances
(in response to Daniel Adam)
My company is taking the approach of upgrading (in some cases replacing software
with another vendor's) anywhere it finds lack of compliance. There may be
exceptions (vendor packages for which there is no immediately available
appropriate substitute, etc. -- but in such a case the software is tested, and
its behavior and associated risks etc. documented. (I'm not sure I know of any
specific cases of the latter scenario, but it's a big company and my position
doesn't give me the need to access detail on other projects, although I know it
is available, as everything is being tracked.) The cost-benefit formula for
whether to upgrade or not will of course vary by company. Of course, there is
eventually a cost of not upgrading even without Y2K; this helps make the
decision to upgrade. An exception might be if you were going to dump the
software (replace) pretty soon anyway; alternatively, this situation gives extra
weight to proceeding with replacement sooner if possible. If you upgrade or
replace, you should still do discovery/testing whenever possible to validate the
vendor's claims, so there is motivation to avoid testing twice. And, the degree
of compliance needed may be perceived to be greater depending on the guarantees
one needs to make to customers, agencies, regulators, investors, etc. In some
cases, what may otherwise seem to be a disproportionate amount of diligence or
investment vs. the risk involved, is seen as worth it for these less tangible
but important reasons. Also, the availability/on-site presence and activities
(and associated costs) for the rollover weekend, must be planned appropriately
based on degree of risk, potential cost of later outages, etc.

Gavin Hogan
Information Systems Consultant
Metropolitan Life

This is repost, original I think haven't got through.

> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to hear from you guys, during the y2k readiness efforts, how
> many of you had to cope with software that is labeled by it's producent as
> being NOT READY. Specifically, is anyone outthere working for company
> where they use so old versions that are not supported anymore. Did any of
> the shops preferred not upgrading to y2k ready versions, but rather do the
> y2k testing and save the money ? Specifically I'm interested in financial
> institutions.
>
> This sound probably very strange, but I just got hold of the list of ( our
> customer ) software and realized that all but one compnents are not y2k
> ready, not even suported anymore. They apparently rely on their own
> testing, plus consultants' attest. Even with all the money for the
> upgrades, I think it's not feasable to buy, test and make all the
> transitions to a new y2k-ready versions in time. Not that they chose that
> path, they are not willing to shell that kind of money - they probably
> didn't upgrade the software for years. It's getting pretty hot around here
> these days.
>
> Thanks for any comments
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> Daniel Adam
> Gratex International
> [login to unmask email]
> www.gratex.sk
>