This is stolen straight from Sanger's Reviews:

***********

U.S. spending on Y2K work, "estimated to total about $300 billion," this article says, peaked last year, and the computer industry is beginning to think beyond the New Year. Shares of Y2K consulting companies have plummeted. "Big corporations have slashed internal staff assigned to Y2K, and a lot of freelance software consultants are hitting the streets. Those who can't diversify face imminent obsolescence." One consultant says that Y2K specialty firms will be bought out by larger firms. "Even industry giants could end up with a Y2K hangover. Because many companies are delaying buying new software and hardware until after the Y2K storm blows over, analysts expect big service companies, which typically install and maintain large systems, to face a slowdown as D-day draws nearer." (See the next article.) But an Electronic Data Systems spokesman "says the company thinks business might actually increase this summer, as big customers start contracting post-year-2000 services work." Electric utility Consolidated Edison Inc. had the equivalent of 100 full-time Y2K workers at one point last year; now it's down to 20. The big push "is virtually all done." Shares in computer services firm Keane Inc. have dropped about 55% since last April; other computer services firms have had similar drops. So, "Keane and other computer-service firms are hustling to come up with non-Y2K business". Some other similar firms are discussed.

***********

What could this possibly mean? Here are a few suggestions:

1) Big companies have abandoned all hope of finishing, and their top management is now planning to take the money and run.

2) Companies are too stingy to pay consultants. They want good results this quarter and are willing to take their chances on y2k.

3) Not understanding the potential consequences, companies have decided that ordinary maintenance and development have become more important than y2k.

4) The Wall Street Journal actually talked to hundreds of companies, and has chosen to present only the far end of the curve.

5) The WSJ has a vested interest in happy-face y2k news, and we can't trust a word they say.

Can anyone think of any other possible explanation for this alleged trend?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 12, 1999

Answers

Flint, this is the article I referenced in your post yesterday. I am disappointed in the tone of your last posts. Your post yesterday about "Where do GI's Come From" postulated that all GI's have various neuroses or worse mental pathology. Now you sarcastically "analyze" the Journal article. Healthy skepticism is constructive. The sarcasm doesn't move the discussion forward.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 12, 1999.

Puddintame commented:

"Flint, this is the article I referenced in your post yesterday. I am disappointed in the tone of your last posts. Your post yesterday about "Where do GI's Come From" postulated that all GI's have various neuroses or worse mental pathology. Now you sarcastically "analyze" the Journal article. Healthy skepticism is constructive. The sarcasm doesn't move the discussion forward. "

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 12, 1999.

Puddintame, Flint is a sophisticated TROLL, ALWAYS has been and ALWAYS will be.

Flint, this is OLD news. Anyone who is coming in 50% below budget on y2k remediation has given up!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), March 12, 1999.

Flint,

The obvious answer to your question, "Can anyone think of any other possible explanation for this alleged trend?", is that the "repair" of Y2K problems has gone past the need for a maximum effort.

Although such is possible, at least theoretically, it will take more than this poorly written, weasel-worded bit of propaganda to convince me.

Let's look at what is actually said:

U.S. spending on Y2K work, "estimated to total about $300 billion," this article says, peaked last year, and the computer industry is beginning to think beyond the New Year Maybe such spending peaked and maybe it didn't. No evidence is presented, only assertion. Maybe the "computer industry" is beginning to think about next year and maybe this reporter just needed a catchy phrase to grab the reader's attention. Again, only an assertion. Shares of Y2K consulting companies have plummeted Which companies? How many? All this tells us is that shares of at least two companies fell. Another assertion without support. "Big corporations have slashed internal staff assigned to Y2K, and a lot of freelance software consultants are hitting the streets Which "big corporations? How many did they "slash"? How many is "a lot"? More unsupported assertion, and weasel words that only say after all that at least two corporations that the reporter considers "big" cut the headcount in their Y2K staff by some undefined number and that some again undefined number of contractors were "hitting the streets", although the reporter leaves you on your own to decide if they did so voluntarily or not. Those who can't diversify face imminent obsolescence." Another unsupported assertion that presupposes that such contractors will be unable to find other Y2K work, thus fostering the intended image of Y2K being a "done deal". One consultant says that Y2K specialty firms will be bought out by larger firms. Only one? Who is he and why should we listen to him? Is he one of those who are "hitting the streets"? "Even industry giants could end up with a Y2K hangover Interesting sentence and imagery, but what the Hell does it mean?. Because many companies are delaying buying new software and hardware until after the Y2K storm blows over, analysts expect big service companies, which typically install and maintain large systems, to face a slowdown as D-day draws nearer." (See the next article.) Is it coincidence that this writer uses the storm analogy to refer to Y2K? Could it be that a certain "PR" firm has "contacts" at the WSJ? Analysts may "expect" anything their hearts' desire, this is simply more weasel wording and conjecture attempting to don the mantle of authority. But an Electronic Data Systems spokesman "says the company thinks business might actually increase this summer, as big customers start contracting post-year-2000 services work." Have you ever heard an EDS "spokesman" trumpet anything but optimistic forecasts for EDS? This is "filler" and adds nothing to credibility. Electric utility Consolidated Edison Inc. had the equivalent of 100 full-time Y2K workers at one point last year; now it's down to 20. What the Hell is "the equivalent of 100 full-time workers"? These same 20 guys working five times as hard? The big push "is virtually all done." Virtually? Is that like virtual storage? (It's not really there) Shares in computer services firm Keane Inc. have dropped about 55% since last April; other computer services firms have had similar drops What "others" and how much of a drop?. So, "Keane and other computer-service firms are hustling to come up with non-Y2K business". Are you convinced yet? Would you hire this guy as a reporter? Would you hire him to put together a "poll"? Does this article inspire TRUST in the media in genereal and in the WSJ in particular?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 12, 1999.

Troll alert. Maybe Flint is Vinnie and Mutha Natur?

-- Trollsniffer (OntoFlint@Last.Com), March 12, 1999.

Flint - give up, give your brain a rest.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), March 12, 1999.

I can always tell by Hardliner's writing how he's feeling.

Right now, his face is a deep shade of red, he is slanting forward close to Flint's face, and his voice loud but not yelling, his facial expression betraying the great internal battle at maintaining his civility...

I feel like answering for Flint "YESSIR!" ;-)

Teasing aside, well thought post Hardliner :-)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 12, 1999.

Methinks you don't know what a Troll is...

I am a Troll.

Flint is not a Troll.

Now do you get it?

-- Flint is not a Troll (troll@under.bridge), March 12, 1999.

How about a little perspective here?

Flint is no troll. He's got a perspective that bothers some folks (I'm not one of them) and he insists on rigorous reasoning.

FWIW, I value Flint's contributions as attempts to inject such "balance" as is possible into the discussions here. Such balance seems to be non existent in the "news" that is available, but there is no excuse for its lack in our reasoning.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 12, 1999.

Chris,

You may tease me anytime you like. . . (BTW, that would be, "Aye aye, Sir!")

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 12, 1999.

No wonder Milne couldn't begin to take you seriously Flint, oh boy...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), March 12, 1999.

It could be that part of the "decline" in spending is due to the 4 or 5 companies that are ahead of the curve and are nearing the end of their testing.

Perhaps all of those out-of-work consultants (however many they are) could apply with the Federales. Last I heard, FAA, Defense, and Medicare were still WAY behind the curve, and the gummint was trying to hire all the code-fixers it could find.

M

-- Margaret (janssm@aol.com), March 12, 1999.

Alright Flint. You've convinced me I need to jeopardize my career and give you a view of what is happing in my line of work.

Customer needed software enhancement last year. We gave him an estimate. He delayed until this year. Now wants enhancement plus y2k compliance by 19 March. He asked for it last week. We said No Can Do. He said But I'll Actually Give You Some Money. We said Money Is Not The Problem Now. He said Well, Just Give Us The Computer And Y2K Compliant OS So We Can Say Its Y2K OK. We said What About The Mission Software? They said Look, If I Don't Have A System That I Can Certify As Y2K We Won't Be Needing Any Mission Software.

In other words, they have not bothered to fix this system until last week and now that they know that its too late, they are willing to put a system in place that is 100% NON-functional but can be certified as Y2K OK.

Get the picture Flint?

-- a (a@a.a), March 12, 1999.

--a, and then this company will send a letter to whichever other companies whose supply chain they are in, and which have been pressing them for their Y2K status. The letter will say, "We have purchased a new compliant system." And yippee, they won't be cut out of the other's supply chain and can operate for another 9 months till "this idiotic Y2K non-problem" (as they think) will be over with.

Sounds like it would make a great 2001 fairy tale, doesn't it? (On the order of the scary moral-laden Anderson brothers ones.) Thanks for your post -- you're not the only one who's encountered this kind of situation.

-- Bonnie Camp (bonniec@mail.odyssey.net), March 12, 1999.

Hardliner:

No offense, but your comments are misdirected a bit. This is NOT the original article, this is a thumbnail sketch of the article written by Larry Sanger (or possibly Pat Shannon). I would hope the actual article is much longer and more detailed. Accessing the original requires a paid subscription, and I don't have one. I have no idea whether the actual article addresses your comments or not. Your comments themselves are mostly excellent.

I did laugh about 20 people working 5 times as hard, though. When we develop a product, perhaps 50 people are involved total, from original conception to start of production. However, only 3 or 4 are working on any particular stage at any one time. Would it be more accurate to say we had 50 people working on this project, or to say we had the equivalent of 4 people on it?

Can anyone post the original article?

Puddintame:

You are correct about the sarcasm, for which I apologize. I was getting a little fed up with the hard spin this forum puts on everything. I should have counted slowly to FF and asked about this more politely.

'a':

Sounds very much to me like your customer is in the public sector. I expect compliance in the public sector to be abysmal, and this is a primary reason why I anticipate a lot more than a bump in the road. Private sector organizations want to stay in business. Public sector organizations are concerned with 'certification', the hell with the mission.

To everyone:

Assuming that this story isn't malicious misrepresentation, it seems to be quite important. It fits in with several other puzzle pieces we've seen here recently -- projections of completion by summer (by many), Hamasaki's lament that y2k salaries never rose very high and have tanked, people looking for y2k work and unable to find it, headhunters who find no profit in this niche, remediation budgets being only partly consumed, Tava and other embedded remediators taking it on the chin, etc.

How do these pieces fit with the stories of missed deadlines, SME's still waiting to get around to it, vendor upgrades being late and buggy, problems getting worse the as you look into them harder, etc.?

Something strange is going on here.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 12, 1999.

Hardliner commented:

"Flint is no troll. He's got a perspective that bothers some folks (I'm not one of them) and he insists on rigorous reasoning. "

Hardliner, beg to differ with you but Flint's posts here waste much time.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), March 12, 1999.

Ray,

How can you justify excluding anything (including Flint's postings) without examination?

It's one thing to evaluate and label someone's posts and then express your opinion. We are all entitled to do that.

It's quite another to predict that everything from that source will be valueless in the future.

It seems to me that unless everything presented turns out to be valuable and credible evidence some time will be spent evaluating material which is subsequently judged to be "wasted time". I think it just goes with the territory when one attempts to solve problems.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 12, 1999.

IMHO, what you see in the y2k software remediation world now is a mixture of lunacy (de Jager), coupled with management DGI's that don't want to spend the money, combined with management GI's that understand the systemic nature of the problem and therefore feel the effort was a failure from the beginning.

With only 9 months to go, it's pretty much over for most companies. They didn't make it, or even if they did, many of their suppliers didn't. Y2K has already sunk its teeth into western society, but the effects will not be felt until months and years from now. Y2K is not a hurricane that hits on 1/1/00; it's a crisis period followed by a 10 year depression, like Yourdon says. And that's only if things don't go even more poorly.

-- a (a@a.a), March 12, 1999.

Ray --- While Flint is exhibiting troll-like tendencies lately, I completely agree with Hardliner. Besides, unlike Flint, I have a great deal of confidence in the intellectual sagacity of the folks who check in here. Let them sort everything out. This isn't a sporting event and I, at least, don't care who "wins".

Besides, soon enough, all the Y2K speculation will be over, we're almost there, really. It's always been such an incredible bore waiting it out ....

a: Right on. I would add that we are now at the most optimistic point in the Y2K "project", whether locally or globally. All the easy stuff has been fixed (that's the way of IT); a lot of in-house people are always glad to kick out the consulting orgs ("we've got it under control, boss") and, indeed, it is also part of the psychology to focus on next year's budget AS IF Y2K is already in the bag.

Surrrrre it is. Deja vu awaits just up ahead, folks.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 12, 1999.

can't disagree with Big Dog here. I do hope the remediators win. The first rounds were brutal, but remediators seem to have found a second wind and are almost holding their own right now. At best, we'll have a split decision.

Viewed as a free-for-all, it's clear that some won't remain standing at the end, and those still standing will be bloodied and hurting for a while. How I wish we could sit this one out.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 12, 1999.