http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/all/991004C43E

Are your Y2K contingency plans based on unrealistic assumptions? Many companies are finding the answer is yes

By Kathleen Melymuka 10/04/99

John Wylder thought year 2000 contingency planning was going to be a snap. "I had been in contingency planning for years," says the Y2K project director at SunTrust Bank Inc. in Atlanta. "I knew we had tested them every year." With a little tweaking to adjust the existing plans for Y2K, he recalls, "I was thinking this was done."

But then a team from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP suggested the bank take a second look. "I was thinking, 'We can't do better,'" he recalls. "But then we did some 'what-ifs,' and I saw it made sense to look at this a different way."

The second look resulted in an entirely new approach to Y2K contingency planning at the bank, and that experience isn't unique. Many year 2000 project directors are discovering that contingency plans that sound great in theory fall apart in practice.

"People are challenging assumptions they made," says Jim Jones, managing director of the year 2000 group at the Information Management Forum in Atlanta. "The reality is that a lot of things people think about (doing) are not viable options."

There are many lessons to be learned from walk-throughs, tabletop war games or just an examination of assumptions. If you haven't taken a second look, you may be counting on contingencies that won't work.

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Y2KOK.ORG), October 06, 1999