I had posted this as an answer to Decker's letter to Ed and thought it deserved some attention of it's own as there are many people still curious as to how/why systems will or won't fail.

River - My background includes almost 30 years of Programming, Systems Analysis, Systems Architecture and Project Management - most of it within the realm of Financial Systems.

I don't know what your background is, but I would venture to say that it is not parallel to my own. I would like to bring a few things to light in regard to your statements about Fiscal Year processing.

River - "Fiscal year computer logic IS significant. What YOU fail to grasp is the way each business or govt system employs the data in that system and how any "glitch" might manifest. Certainly not in your time table (convenvient to rebuke)."

Actually - truth be known - Fiscal Year Processing is not much different than a standard Month End process. The books are closed out (all transactions processed for the calendar month) and posted. General Ledger now has a full month of data which is applicable only to that month (years really don't enter into the picture in terms of processing a balance sheet). All of the companies and organizations I have worked with over the years (including Local, State and Federal Government) have all processed Fiscal Year End the same. Actually I can not think of any other way it could be done within the realm of reason. Some organizations choose to align their Fiscal Year with the end of the second Calendar Quarter (June 30th). The reporting of Fiscal Year End data (on IBM Mainframe Systems) is generally done with the processing of the last 12 generations of History Files (backups taken of the current month's data at the end of the month). The dollars are accumulated on both sides of the balance sheet (with little to no regard for what year it is processing - since it is just working with "generations" of backup data) and then reported as Totals by Organization, Cost Center, Account, etc.

River - "Data mishaps happen when that system is involved with correlations using FUTURE extrapolations. I.E. WHEN that particular business/system is involved in actually USING that data. They don't go by a schedule convenient for anyone's predictions, not even yours."

Fiscal Year reporting is done at the END of a Fiscal Year - Not at the beginning. What you have chosen to use as a model here is some form of Financial Forecasting. I have never heard of Fiscal Year processing using dates in the future.

River - "Pollys have been told , over and over again that most failures of this sort would NOT be seen til the end of the month, since the majority of systems used wouldn't be accessing that data til then."

If there were to be a date related failure in the Fiscal Year End process for an organization, it would happen during the close of the Fiscal Month/Year. In other words, if there were to be a date related failure in the Fiscal Year processing for ABC-Widgets Fiscal Year 1999 which closed on June 30th 1999 - That failure would have occurred in the early hours of batch processing on July 1st, 1999. Corporate online systems cannot be made available until the batch process for the previous day is complete. You are wrong.

River - "Do you have trouble with calendars? And exactly WHO do you think will deem you so important that they will ......"

MuchoSnippage

......" I am. If you aren't smart enough to listen to the infomation that already exists on those topics, we won't waste the time to do it now. Time will prove what is truth and what the results of that truth will have on our society and lives. "

Well now River, Hopefully you will be calm enough to have read and understood what I have tried to impart to you.

This is, basically, how the cow eats the cabbage in the world of financial systems.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999

Answers

If there were to be a date related failure in the Fiscal Year End process for an organization, it would happen during the close of the Fiscal Month/Year. In other words, if there were to be a date related failure in the Fiscal Year processing for ABC-Widgets Fiscal Year 1999 which closed on June 30th 1999 - That failure would have occurred in the early hours of batch processing on July 1st, 1999. Corporate online systems cannot be made available until the batch process for the previous day is complete. You are wrong.

I have known companies that were MONTHS behind in closing the books for a given period. The idea that everybody whose fiscal year ended June 30 closed on July 1 is idealistic in the extreme.

(Nice try, though.)

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 23, 1999.

Lane,

And what major corporations would these be? Name names Lane!

I work primarily within the Fortune 5000 group as well as Local/State/Federal government and I have *never* heard of this.

So, if you want to rebuke my factual statements, you have to do so with your OWN facts.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

Wasn't there a company based in Denver that announced several months ago their intention to change the date of their fiscal year? Rather like unemployment had done? How likely would it be that this has been done by any others? Postponing the date doesn't seem very practical and yet, I suppose buying additional time is critical to those in need of it. What would the technical issue be in developing a plan like this?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 23, 1999.

Will -

The changing of Fiscal Year reporting periods is done quite frequently by corporations that change from doing business strictly with the private sector to including the public sector (Government). When a corporation is a contractor or sub-contractor to the Federal Government, they (the corporation) are generally required to re-align their fiscal reporting year to the Calendar year. Don't ask me why, but the GSA has all kinds of funny rules and regulations which alter the way corporations show their profit/loss when dealing with them.

Most of the Corps I have worked with that altered their FYE to coincide with the end of the 2nd calendar quarter, did so to reduce the overall burden of calendar year end reporting.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

I work primarily within the Fortune 5000 group as well as Local/State/Federal government and I have *never* heard of this. So, if you want to rebuke my factual statements, you have to do so with your OWN facts.

What are you talking about? You haven't posted any facts. You have posted your assertions. And I have posted mine.

Moreover, I actually post using my name. If you wanna talk facts, start posting with your name.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 23, 1999.

BTW, on the whole, I agree with what COBOL Dinosaur wrote here. But his assertion that it's all done the day after the period or year ends is simply not true.

I guess he must have worked only where everything is done the way it ought to be done.... :-)

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 23, 1999.

Lane - et al.

I don't know that you are posting with your REAL name - And if I weren't using such an unlikely moniker here, you would not know if I was posting with mine.

Regardless, I will post a list of the corporations / organizations that I have worked with/for over the years (directly or indirectly via sub-contract)and I can honestly say that not a single one of them has a financial accounting system that is as screwed up as many here (including you) have portrayed.

Due to non-disclosure agreements with literally all of these organizations, I cannot disclose any direct information about them.

Additionally - The period of time it takes to create all of the reports "Reporting Phase" may take weeks beyond the actual Fiscal Year End - but the "base data" and metrics are almost always generated within the first 24 hours following the close of the last business day of the Fiscal Year.

The List:

ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) Allianz / LifeUSA AMOCO (Standard Oil Company) Andersen Windows Aviall of Texas Cargil Cooper Industries Corporate Payment Systems Dayton Hudson Corporation Eduserv Technologies FBI Federal Reserve System Fingerhut Gelco (General Leasing Corporation) HB Fuller HealthPartners Hewlet Packard IBM International Multifoods MGIC (Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp) Minneapolis Star Tribune Newspaper Mobil Oil Melon Bank Peavey Company Ryder Systems Inc. Seagate Technology State of Minnesota Square D Corporation Texas Commerce Bank Texas Instruments Tandy Corporation TLSI TRW Credit Systems US Bank USAF-SAC USN Wausau Insurance William Wrigley co.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

The list - one more try:

ADM (Archer Daniels Midland)

Allianz / LifeUSA

AMOCO (Standard Oil Company)

Andersen Windows

Aviall of Texas

Cargil

Cooper Industries

Corporate Payment Systems

Dayton Hudson Corporation

Eduserv Technologies

FBI

Federal Reserve System

Fingerhut

Gelco (General Leasing Corporation)

HB Fuller

HealthPartners

Hewlet Packard

IBM

International Multifoods

MGIC (Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp)

Minneapolis Star Tribune Newspaper

Mobil Oil

Melon Bank

Peavey Company

Ryder Systems Inc.

Seagate Technology

State of Minnesota

Square D Corporation

Texas Commerce Bank

Texas Instruments

Tandy Corporation

TLSI

TRW Credit Systems

US Bank

USAF-SAC

USN

Wausau Insurance

William Wrigley co.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

Assertions from the pseudonymous. Thanks.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 23, 1999.

Lane

I don't know how long you have been lurking at TB2000 (or the Debunking site), but COBOL Dinosaur has indeed posted his real name at least a couple of times.

I won't reveal his real name (I'm sure quite of few of the regulars know who he is). He can do that himself if he wishes.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

Gee, Lane -- maybe you should reconsider.

After all, Dino is so deep an insider to such MAJOR orgs as: Mobil Oil, USAF-SAC, USN, IBM, FBI, State of MN, and even the FEDERAL RESERVE -- that he can say with absolute assurance that: "...I can honestly say that not a single one of them has a financial accounting system that is as screwed up as many here (including you) have portrayed."

Golly, Lane. For us mere mortals, just understanding the FEDERAL RESERVE's accounting system would be a life's work. Dino "can honestly say" he knows the level of "screw-up" of ALL of these.

Just because he won't use his real name -- well, that doesn't mean he'd lie, or exaggerate, or anything.

Anita Evangelista

My REAL Name

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 23, 1999.

Anita -

"After all, Dino is so deep an insider to such MAJOR orgs as: Mobil Oil, USAF-SAC, USN, IBM, FBI, State of MN, and even the FEDERAL RESERVE -- that he can say with absolute assurance that: "...I can honestly say that not a single one of them has a financial accounting system that is as screwed up as many here (including you) have portrayed."

Golly, Lane. For us mere mortals, just understanding the FEDERAL RESERVE's accounting system would be a life's work. Dino "can honestly say" he knows the level of "screw-up" of ALL of these.

Just because he won't use his real name -- well, that doesn't mean he'd lie, or exaggerate, or anything. "

Anita - That's one of the beauties of accounting - There are only so many ways that accounting principles are applied in business. Balance sheets are always the same. Assets always equal Equity minus liability. It's simple. So many people make SOOOOOO much of the world of accounting and it is really quite simple and straight forward.

You can chose to not believe me - certainly that is your option and I defend your right to your opinion. What I have shared with you and the others is my professional opinion of the situation as it exists/existed with the organizations I listed. Now mind you that this list is composed of engagements I have had over almost 30 years in the business. I cannot state that they are in the same condition now (heck a few of them don't even exist today) as they were when I was working with them.

Some of the engagements were working with systems which were not Financial in nature - I will have to soften my statement about the condition of the financial systems in those instances.

By and large, the experience I have is with Financial Systems and Mainframes - but I will work for the highest bidder with the sweetest contract.

"Anita Evangelista My REAL Name "

Yeah - ok. I believe you.

Yours in COBOL... "The Bean Counter's friend" Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

Another opinion on the Jo Anne Effect...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000XvI

[snip]

Companies don't always open up a new fiscal year right away. They often wait until all of the year-end entries are posted before they "roll over" to the new year. This could take 3 or 4 weeks. And accounting system problems aren't the type of thing that is immediately obvious to outsiders. I would imagine that most corporations could muddle along quite nicely for several months with a non-functional general ledger.

Hope this helps.

Jo Anne

-- Jo Anne Slaven (slaven@rogerswave.ca), February 27, 1999

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 23, 1999.

Lane -

"Assertions from the pseudonymous. Thanks. "

Likewise!

Actually to be compared in the same light as Mark Twain - I think is a good thing!

"Assertions" are my considered opinion that many companies have paid a good deal of money to acquire. Can you say the same thing?

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

Dino, in support of his contention that "...I can honestly say that not a single one of them has a financial accounting system that is as screwed up as many here (including you) have portrayed."

now says: "That's one of the beauties of accounting - There are only so many ways that accounting principles are applied in business. Balance sheets are always the same. Assets always equal Equity minus liability. It's simple. So many people make SOOOOOO much of the world of accounting and it is really quite simple and straight forward."

You know, this really makes me wonder, Dino. I guess all those poor suckers who spend four years learning "accounting" should just get back to the ol' balance sheet, eh? Oh, and those CPAs that some of your "former employers" have hired -- I guess we can let them go, too?

Dino, in his softening postion, also said: "What I have shared with you and the others is my professional opinion of the situation as it exists/existed with the organizations I listed. Now mind you that this list is composed of engagements I have had over almost 30 years in the business. I cannot state that they are in the same condition now (heck a few of them don't even exist today) as they were when I was working with them."

Dino, what you just said here is that some of your experience is almost 30 years old....and refers to what "existed" (past tense)...and some of these companies are dead. That means you simply DO NOT KNOW what is happening now within these structures.

So how can you "honestly say" anything about their financial systems, internal workings, or y2k-situation? Except, maybe, "I don't know"?

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 23, 1999.

The following thread has quite a few links to information on accounting software, the Jo Anne Effect and fiscal year rollovers:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00122f

"Significance of States Fiscal Start"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 23, 1999.

Anita -

After reading your diatribe I am compelled to ask you this:

How long is your experience worthwhile?

In other words - that was YESTERDAY does it still count?

Certainly it does - because your experience is the foundation on which you build upon for the duration of your life.

I did not mean to belittle accountants and the work that they do. I was speaking of Basic Accounting methodology - which in my "opinion" is very easy. The application of extended accounting principles has not entered into the conversation here. Actuarial Acounting is made up of some of the spookiest stuff I have ever worked with. But none the less, Accounting is pure mathematical principle which always lends itself, quite easily, to programming logic.

Creative accounting - which there indeed has been a market for (look at all the accountants in the prison system) is another matter altogether.

The organizations I have worked with over the years, with only a couple exceptions, were all top-flight in regard to their systems. I tend to believe that those organizations that are still around would have maintained the high order of excellence in their systems. Remember that many of these organizations are not only Fortune 5000 (a couple 500 are in there) but many of them are Government contractors and/or sub-contractors. These types of organizations are subject to regular (generally annual) audits. Audits which not only look at the dollars to make sure the balance sheet really balances, but that the logic and business principles in place are "Standardized and accepted practices".

Now Anita - I don't know what axe you think you have to grind with ol' Dino here, but rest assured when it comes to Financial Systems, I can outlast you, River, and even EY hisself in any form of contest.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

Dino:

I don't have any ax to grind with you, either. I'm only pointing out the extreme inconsistencies in what you are saying.

Such as: "I tend to believe that those organizations that are still around would have maintained the high order of excellence in their systems."

Please notice that what you are talking about here is your BELIEFS....and, yes, we are all entitled to those. However, you have previously stated your beliefs as if they are FACTS....as in "honestly state" that you KNOW the condition of various companies that you haven't worked for in decades.

What you BELIEVE may be very different that what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING. I think, in the pursuit of honest discourse, you might just admit that you plain "don't know" what's going on in a lot of these orgs. That's KNOW, as opposed to BELIEVE.

Finally, Dino said, "... I can outlast you, River, and even EY hisself in any form of contest."

I don't know what kind of "contest" you think you're in, Dino -- I'm just trying to get some accurate information.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 23, 1999.

Anita -

I don't know what you do for a living and it really doesn't matter to me, but I am sure it would matter to you if I chose to tell you that your word on something that you have dealt with for almost 30 years was not factual.

A few make-believe but *possible* scenarios for you to ponder:

Case - You take your car to the mechanic because the engine is stalling. Mechanic says "It needs a new O2 sensor" - You say "Why should I believe you? It probably just needs a higher octane fuel!". Who is right? I would put my money on the mechanic.

Case - You call the plumber because your bathtub drains slow. Plumber says "Your elbow trap is full of crud and is so rotten I have to replace it." You say "That's okay, it's probably the low pressure front that just moved in - it'll be okay once the weather clears up". Who is right? I would put my money on the plumber.

Case - Computer systems may be in jeopardy because of possible faulty logic. You call the programmer. Programmer says "The system looks tight to me and I tested it using all the standard industry utilities." You say "I don't think so. I don't think you could POSSIBLY know what to test or how to test it, let alone determine if the code was tight". Who is right? I would put my money on the programmer.

Where are you going to put YOUR money Anita? I know where I am putting mine.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

I used to lurk here a lot. I finally gave up on this place because I was tired of seeing the nit picking that goes on here. Cobol Dinorsaur made a great point.

Anita said "Dino, in support of his contention that "...I can honestly say that not a single one of them has a financial accounting system that is as screwed up as many here (including you) have portrayed." now says: "That's one of the beauties of accounting - There are only so many ways that accounting principles are applied in business. Balance sheets are always the same. Assets always equal Equity minus liability. It's simple. So many people make SOOOOOO much of the world of accounting and it is really quite simple and straight forward."

Nit pick. Find ittle inconsistencies. That's why I don't lurk here anymore. "In this message you said the dress was red, in that message, you said it was green. Which is it?" Who cares? Maybe the dress was read and green checked!

I don't always agree with Cobol, but he made a good point, and I arguing whether he actually worked for all these companies is stupid.

Back to lurking somewhere else.

-- Old Lurker (old_lurker@lurk.net), July 23, 1999.

Dino:

Your last post had no relationship whatsoever to the things you said previously. Once again: you said you "BELIEVED" as opposed to you "KNOW". In spite of what your pal Lurker said, these are very distinctly different things.

I have been working for over 30 years in different companies, too. I worked in the international finance department of Max Factor, a major cosmetics manufacturer in 1972-3 -- assistant to the manager. I handled the spreadsheets, saw how the money was invested, and made recommendations on how we could improve sales. Does this mean that I am "in the know" about how the company now handles their international sales? The TRUTH is, that I don't know a thing about MF as it is today. Not a darn thing. My info is over 25 years OUT OF DATE.

I can say, as you did, that "I believe the company is financially sound, based on the quality of their __________" -- but, even that is only based on personal experience that is decades old! The same people probably don't even work there anymore -- so I cannot even reasonably extrapolate to today's situation.

Dino, this is precisely what you have said. You know what a company was doing 10, 20, or 30 years ago. That has absolutely no bearing on how they handle business today.

If you don't KNOW what they are doing, what's so hard about saying so?

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 23, 1999.

I, for one, am not so arrogant as to assume that I have become omniscient because of my education and experience.

The extinct small-brained animal says, "I work primarily within the Fortune 5000 group as well as Local/State/Federal government and I have *never* heard of this." I have no problem with that, ESBA. There's lots of things I've never heard of, too. I am not so arrogant as to assume or assert that, because I have never heard of them, they don't exist.

Maybe you missed it while promulgating your illustrious resume, but I did say that maybe you have worked at places where things are done as they should be done.

Unless you are claiming omniscience about what has/does/will go on at every place of business around the world, derived from your own experiences, why don't you just drop this?

Or are you omniscient?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 24, 1999.

Hey Lane:

While waiting around for Dino, I did a little computation.

He listed 38 companies that he worked for in his "almost 30" years of computer experience. That means that he worked for each company *on average* about .78 year -- or about 6-1/2 months.

Now, probably, he would have worked for some for longer -- say, two or three years -- but that means other terms of employment would have been reduced to mere days or weeks.

Pretty darn good that he can "honestly" state he KNOWS the financial ins-and-outs of ALL these places -- with only an average of 6-1/2 months work inside!

Anita Evangelista

PS: Methinks Dino ain't tellin' the truth.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 24, 1999.

Ooopss. Sorry. Calculation error ahead!!! That should be Dino worked *on average* about 9 months for each company, not 6-1/2.

Nevertheless, it's still pretty remarkable!

Anita E.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 24, 1999.

Sounds like he worked for a temp agency.

-- h (h@h.h), July 24, 1999.

If Dino is a computer contractor, 9 months at one site is considered a long-term contract. If Dino's SPECIALTY is Financial Systems, he could very well know all the ins and outs of these firms' Financial Systems in much less time than a 9-month stint. Of course he wouldn't necessarily know about the OTHER aspects of the company, but many permanent employees wouldn't necessarily know about those other aspects either.

As a computer contractor myself, I've had projects that were as short as two months or as long as 2 years, depending on the magnitude of the project. I recently discussed this whole concept of "I have 25 years of experience in such and such, therefore I'm in a position to comment on such and such." If you've worked at ONE company for 25 years, supporting ONE system for 25 years, you really only have ONE year's experience, as that's the maximum length of time it took you to gain the experience required to support that system. If you've worked 25 years at DIFFERENT sites, seen first-hand how various organizations do business, your experience is much more valuable, IMO.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 24, 1999.

Anita Spooner said: "If you've worked 25 years at DIFFERENT sites, seen first-hand how various organizations do business, your experience is much more valuable, IMO."

"Experience" in general, may be more widely-based than if one concentrates on a single company. But that's NOT what Dino said.

Dino said "I can honestly say that not a single one of them has a financial accounting system that is as screwed up as many here (including you) have portrayed."

If his experience at any of these companies was of 9 months duration, and took place 20 years ago -- how can he possibly "honestly" state ANYTHING about that company's y2k financial position???? The staff has had turnovers, the company has seen ups and downs, Dino even admitted that some no longer exist -- i.e., failed, absorbed, or grew into something else.

And, honestly. You actually believe you can "know all the ins and outs of these firms' Financial Systems in much less time than a 9-month stint"? "ALL THE INS AND OUTS" of the FBI's financial system in 9 months? The Navy? The Strategic Air Command? The Federal Reserve???? Puh-leeeease.

Anita Evangelista

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 24, 1999.

Sorry for the long delay in my response - We had a transformer blow on the power line and we were literally the entire weekend without power (99 degrees here yesterday - 113 heat index) only lost about $400 worth of groceries and 3 nights sleep.

======================================

Anita -

"Dino: Your last post had no relationship whatsoever to the things you said previously. Once again: you said you "BELIEVED" as opposed to you "KNOW". In spite of what your pal Lurker said, these are very distinctly different things. "

You are definately a "picker-of-nits" Ms. Anita. Given the duration of time since my engagements with some of these organizations, this would lead me to say "believe" instead of "know". Remember, I will not say that "I KNOW" something unless I truly *DO* know it to be true "CURRENTLY".

======================================

Anita -

"I have been working for over 30 years in different companies, too. I worked in the international finance department of Max Factor, a major cosmetics manufacturer in 1972-3 -- assistant to the manager. I handled the spreadsheets, saw how the money was invested, and made recommendations on how we could improve sales. Does this mean that I am "in the know" about how the company now handles their international sales? The TRUTH is, that I don't know a thing about MF as it is today. Not a darn thing. My info is over 25 years OUT OF DATE.

I can say, as you did, that "I believe the company is financially sound, based on the quality of their __________" -- but, even that is only based on personal experience that is decades old! The same people probably don't even work there anymore -- so I cannot even reasonably extrapolate to today's situation. "

Okay so you were an Administrative Assistant in a Finance area 25 years ago. And this gives you license to challenge someone's opinion who has worked for almost 30 years in the business? I don't think so. You, Anita, are just another heckler in the audience.

======================================

Anita -

"Dino, this is precisely what you have said. You know what a company was doing 10, 20, or 30 years ago. That has absolutely no bearing on how they handle business today.

If you don't KNOW what they are doing, what's so hard about saying so? "

It has been my experience that Corporations that have been in business for as long as 100 years still use the same basic accounting practices that they used as a foundation in the beginning. Corps that have gone International have added the associated "twist" to the system, but for the most part the only things that change are the way that Cost Centers / Divisions etc are grouped. This I "BELIEVE" to be true in the organizations I have dealt with.

======================================

LANE -

"I, for one, am not so arrogant as to assume that I have become omniscient because of my education and experience. The extinct small-brained animal says, "I work primarily within the Fortune 5000 group as well as Local/State/Federal government and I have *never* heard of this." I have no problem with that, ESBA. There's lots of things I've never heard of, too. I am not so arrogant as to assume or assert that, because I have never heard of them, they don't exist. "

Given that the Fortune-5000 hold many more opportunities for Accounting methodology and variances - I "BELIEVE" that these corporations actually form the paradigm that all industry is based upon. Call this "Inferential Analysis" if you will. And, if I am guilty of this "Inferential Analysis" then you must also slay Westergard and Yourdon because they have BOTH admitted in public forums that this is the way that they have formulated their opinions!

======================================

Lane -

"Or are you omniscient? "

Only The Lord GOD is omniscient.

======================================

Anita -

"He listed 38 companies that he worked for in his "almost 30" years of computer experience. That means that he worked for each company *on average* about .78 year -- or about 6-1/2 months.

Now, probably, he would have worked for some for longer -- say, two or three years -- but that means other terms of employment would have been reduced to mere days or weeks.

Pretty darn good that he can "honestly" state he KNOWS the financial ins-and-outs of ALL these places -- with only an average of 6-1/2 months work inside!

PS: Methinks Dino ain't tellin' the truth. "

----

Despite your failure in mathematics, I will address this -

I am an Industry Consultant and have been for the vast majority of my engagement with this career. As a consultant you are expected to "hit the ground running" - I can do this in literally all cases. It is this ability to be able to latch onto a system and a problem and bring forth swift resolution of issues that has kept me employed all these years. An EDP Auditor (which I almost became had the offer from EY not been delayed by a Fed-X strike some time back) must be able to have a grasp of the entire accounting functionality of a corporation within "2 WEEKS TIME". Within that grasp must also be and found inconsistencies and a full analysis of the system in general. Anything beyond that time is past the point of discovery and goes into research and analysis (how did it happen).

Additionally - as I pointed out earlier - I generally do carry more than one client at a time. Currently I am working with 3 organizations simultaneously.

======================================

Anita Spooner -

"If Dino is a computer contractor, 9 months at one site is considered a long-term contract. If Dino's SPECIALTY is Financial Systems, he could very well know all the ins and outs of these firms' Financial Systems in much less time than a 9-month stint. Of course he wouldn't necessarily know about the OTHER aspects of the company, but many permanent employees wouldn't necessarily know about those other aspects either. "

Thank you Anita. This is probably falling upon deaf ears at this point.

"As a computer contractor myself, I've had projects that were as short as two months or as long as 2 years, depending on the magnitude of the project. I recently discussed this whole concept of "I have 25 years of experience in such and such, therefore I'm in a position to comment on such and such." If you've worked at ONE company for 25 years, supporting ONE system for 25 years, you really only have ONE year's experience, as that's the maximum length of time it took you to gain the experience required to support that system. If you've worked 25 years at DIFFERENT sites, seen first-hand how various organizations do business, your experience is much more valuable, IMO. "

And it is this wide and varied experience that makes us, as Industry Consultants, so much more valuable.

======================================

Anita -

"If his experience at any of these companies was of 9 months duration, and took place 20 years ago -- how can he possibly "honestly" state ANYTHING about that company's y2k financial position???? The staff has had turnovers, the company has seen ups and downs, Dino even admitted that some no longer exist -- i.e., failed, absorbed, or grew into something else. "

I never made *ANY* claim about the "y2k financial position" of these organizations - I was commenting on their handling of Fiscal Year End - and ONLY that - You better go back and RE-READ.

"And, honestly. You actually believe you can "know all the ins and outs of these firms' Financial Systems in much less time than a 9- month stint"? "ALL THE INS AND OUTS" of the FBI's financial system in 9 months? The Navy? The Strategic Air Command? The Federal Reserve???? Puh-leeeease. "

Not including the time that I served my country during Vietnam - my engagements with the USN and the USAF were concurrent - about 15 weeks in duration and working with their Aviation Component procurement & reporting divisions. The FBI engagement was about 3 weeks in length and I cannot speak to it. The Federal Reserve engagement was as a sub-contractor in developing the Interlinkage and reporting system with member banks - about 9 months.

======================================

There you have it. With this I will end this thread and wait for Mr. Yourdon to respond to my original message. I will not be holding my breath.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 26, 1999.

Dino:

You said, "I never made *ANY* claim about the "y2k financial position" of these organizations - I was commenting on their handling of Fiscal Year End - and ONLY that - You better go back and RE-READ."

Then, you said: " Not including the time that I served my country during Vietnam - my engagements with the USN and the USAF were concurrent - about 15 weeks in duration and working with their Aviation Component procurement & reporting divisions. The FBI engagement was about 3 weeks in length and I cannot speak to it. The Federal Reserve engagement was as a sub-contractor in developing the Interlinkage and reporting system with member banks - about 9 months." But you earlier said: "...I can honestly say that not a single one of them has a financial accounting system that is as screwed up as many here (including you) have portrayed."

NOW you are saying, 2nd quote above -- you actually only worked 15 weeks (less than four months) concurrently for Navy and Air Force -- AND IT WASN'T EVEN IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENTS!!!! And, for the FBI, NOW that doesn't count, because it was only 3 weeks in length. And, the Federal Reserve, well, that wasn't in the "financial accounting system", either.

NOW you also say you said "fiscal year end" -- when, in your OWN words, you said "financial accounting system". If you actually are familiar with either one, you know that these are distinctly different topics -- and, if you are familiar, then you have clearly made some serious boo-boos in offering up the truth. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, Dino.

You said you could "honestly say", but your own words demonstrate that you "honestly" have NO useful current information on the "financial accounting systems" you claimed to be so familiar with.

And, yes -- this is a y2k-discussion forum. It applies to y2k by being on this forum. Have you forgotten that?

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 26, 1999.