September 27, 1999
InformationWeek500
Lessons Learned from Y2K
Time
spent fixing Y2K problems is yielding improved and simplified IT practices
Please
Note: This article first appeared in InformationWeek,
September 27, 1999, pg. 315 - 319.
It's Feb. 22, 2000. Your biggest competitor is floundering. Seems its Y2K efforts didn't go as well as planned, and the company is barely able to operate, even with three times the normal contingent of clerks. Its customers are lining up at your door and at your new Web portal, and your year-to-date sales are up 60% over last year. How sweet it is!
Too good to be true? Probably not for some. Time, no doubt, will tell. But even if completing year 2000 work on time doesn't provide your company with growth opportunities on a silver platter at the expense of Y2-KO'd competitors, there are still many long-term benefits available to every IT operation that faced the Y2K challenge and became more efficient because of it.
The trick is to spot the precious slivers of Y2K's silver linings, nurture them, and make them business as usual at your organization. It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition either. Rather, it's about making continuous, incremental improvements. Whether it's capitalizing on the plight of your competitors or succeeding at a new IT initiative of your own, the extent to which your Y2K experience will help you is primarily a function of the degree to which you can benefit from the lessons learned. How others behave and what opportunities unfold are largely outside your sphere of influence. You only have control over your own preparations for Y2K, what you do with the lessons learned, and the opportunities that result.
Basic Lessons
So what did we learn that we can use to our benefit? In essence, the lessons
of Y2K boil down to two words: quality and simplicity. With proper quality practices,
in fact, the Y2K problem never would have happened in the first place, at least
not to the degree that it did. But given that it did happen, the problem was
exacerbated by the complexity of our systems environments and the lack of standards
for dates and most other things.
So the century ends with the greatest technological housecleaning of all time. And we have started to see improvements in quality practices and the simplification of our high-tech environments. In fact, most of the process improvements we've seen during the past several years appear to be about Y2K-related quality practices.
Based on an annual study by the Society for Information Management (SIM) Y2K Working Group, we've seen improvements since 1997 in software quality and productivity processes and practices, as well as in testing and estimating costs (see chart, below). We've also seen an increase in aspirations to the goals of the Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model for continuously improving software practices.
Although there's plenty of room for further improvement, and there even appears to be some pullback in quality gains this past year, the overall trend is favorable.
Ken Elliott, Y2K program manager at Milliken & Co. Inc., a member of SIM's Y2K Working Group, and one of the co-authors of the group's book, Year 2000 Problem: Strategies and Solutions from the Fortune 100 (www.year2000.unt.edu/book/), says there's been a quantum leap in IT process and tool evolution.
Speaking of the IT industry in general, Elliott says, "without Y2K, there would not have been the market that drove the development of software such as search engines, parsers, and testing tools. Of course, our own failings in the past were the driving forces that demanded these tools. Our failure to document, maintain viable test beds, and exercise proper change control created the need for this development. The result will be better service to our customers for some time to come. That is, if we chose our tools and processes carefully to insure use beyond 2000."
Toward Simplification
It's not news to anyone that we have an IT workforce shortage. But how much
have you thought about its causes? Although there's no single cause for the
technology labor shortfall, the main contributors appear to be our country's
generally poor primary and secondary education system, our own often-deficient
human-resource practices, and the poor quality and excessive complexity of our
systems environments that result in the poor use of available human resources.
To some extent, Y2K has helped us improve all of these-with the exception, perhaps, of our education system. The ongoing SIM Y2K study provides some insights into the Y2K-induced trend toward increasing simplicity and standardization, as well as improvements in technical skills (see chart below).
Year 2000 projects forced IT shops to inventory their information assets, in many cases for the first time. Having such an inventory can lead to simplification. For example, Y2K provided the opportunity for the Student Loan Marketing Association, better known as Sallie Mae, to clean up its software inventory. The organization saved money on licenses and maintenance, as well as precious labor.
Centralized control means common standards, tools, and certifications. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Y2K program director Irene Dec, Prudential Insurance Co. of America was one of the first companies to see the need for centralized control of its Y2K efforts. And Y2K was the first centrally controlled project in the history of that diversified financial-services company.
A powerful insight into the benefits of centralized control for large-scale IT initiatives is revealed in comparing the Y2K programs of the federal government and the state of New York, two enormous projects involving many autonomous units. New York state, under the guidance of Y2K program director Julie Leeper and strong leadership from Gov. George Pataki, was early to identify and focus on the 45 highest-impact systems, regardless of how many agency boundaries were involved.
The U.S. government, on the other hand, has mostly centralized compilations of reports from autonomous and uncoordinated agency projects. The problem with that approach is that it tends to overlook the interdependencies and interconnections of various agencies, among each other and with outside enterprises.
A midyear-1999 comparison of the status of New York's most critical systems and the status of the U.S. government's 43 highest-impact systems showed that 38 of the state's 45 most-critical systems were completed, while only two of the 43 federal systems were, with 27 of them scheduled for completion in December 1999 or at some "unknown" date. That's strong evidence of the benefits of centralized control of certain IT initiatives and assets.
Locating Silver Linings
There are probably as many ways to categorize the silver linings of Y2K as there
are enterprises. Having had a chance to look under the hood of more than 400
Y2K projects, I've come to the conclusion that there are basically three interrelated
categories of potential Y2K benefits and improvements: processes and practices,
knowledge and skills, and attitudes.
Improvements in processes and practices include the kinds of things detailed in the two charts on p. 316, as well as other benefits in the areas of IT-asset management, software development and maintenance, project management and monitoring, and human-resource management.
The second chart (bottom, p. 316) documents some of the benefits in knowledge and skills that also include the benefits derived from having participated in an all-encompassing systems endeavor such as Y2K; the improvements in communications and cooperation skills; the enhanced knowledge of the enterprise and how IT assets support its operations; and how IT connects and supports the customers and suppliers that comprise the supply chain. Best of all, these knowledge enhancements don't just accrue to the company's IT professionals; everyone comes to better understand the critical role that information assets play in the success of the organization.
That chart also indicates improving attitudes about the company's IT people and their skills. The chart at left reveals more of these improvements in knowledge related to Y2K's positive legacy, as well as some improvements in attitudes. These benefits are not just about improved IT professional self-perceptions, but also, assuming things go reasonably well, about the attitudes of others in the enterprise regarding the company's IT people and operations.
To the detriment of many service providers, most of the work of solving Y2K problems was done by internal staff. Although estimates put total IT outsourcing at about 15% to 20% of total IT spending, the estimates for total Y2K work outsourced fall into the 3%-to-5% range. This means that the benefits in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes of having done the work accrues to those internal IT staffers who had the opportunity. It's too early to tell, but a successful Y2K experience may become one of the key prerequisites for entry into the next class of CIOs.
Enough ink has been devoted elsewhere to the role of IT professionals as change agents. And it's no different in institutionalizing the positive changes begun by Y2K efforts. In a nutshell, we're talking about the same kinds of things that lead to the success of any systems project:
And now it's Feb. 22, 2001. Last year was an exceptional one for your company, despite the nuisance of ongoing Y2K problems nearly everywhere. You've got positive programs in place aimed at continuous and incremental improvements of all aspects of your IT operation. Quality and simplicity are the underlying themes. Everyone is on board because everyone understands that it makes each person's job more fulfilling and more productive.
Your business is becoming the nimble, flexible, and efficient machine it takes to succeed in the electronic marketplace. You are becoming the kind of IT professional you always wanted to be, and your co-workers are growing, too. A new synergy has emerged among all the people in your business, as well as with suppliers and customers.
Too good to be true? Probably not for those who faced the challenges of Y2K and won. Time, no doubt, will tell.
Professor Leon A. Kappelman is associate director of the Center for Quality and Productivity in the College of Business at the University of North Texas, co-chairman of the Society for Information Management's Year 2000 Working Group, and chief scientist at Solutions-Organizations-Systems Inc. He can be reached at kapp@unt.edu.
| Chart 1: Y2K-induced Improvements in IT Quality Practices | ||||||
| IT Practices & Processes |
1997
|
1998
|
Preliminary 1999
|
Change 1997-99
|
||
| We aspire to practices of SEI’s Capability Maturity Model. |
2.9
|
3.5
|
3.2
|
10.3%
|
||
| We have a comprehensive set of software quality practices. |
5.7
|
6.0
|
5.8
|
1.8%
|
||
| We practice comprehensive software process improvement. |
5.4
|
5.8
|
5.4
|
0.0%
|
||
| We have comprehensive processes for software testing. |
6.1
|
6.4
|
6.6
|
8.2%
|
||
| We use function points for software cost estimating. |
3.7
|
4.3
|
4.3
|
16.2%
|
||
| Those who develop software are responsible for its maintenance. |
4.9
|
5.3
|
5.2
|
6.1%
|
||
| We practice continuous software productivity improvement. |
5.6
|
5.8
|
6.1
|
8.9%
|
||
| ========================================================================= | ||||||
| Chart 2: Y2K-induced Trends to Simplification, Standardization, & Skill Improvements | ||||||
| IT Practices and Capabilities |
1997
|
1998
|
Preliminary 1999
|
Change 1997-99
|
||
| We have organization-wide compliance standards. |
5.7
|
7.2
|
7.4
|
29.8%
|
||
| We have a established standards for Y2K compliance. |
6.7
|
7.8
|
8.1
|
20.9%
|
||
| We have centralized control of all Y2K efforts. |
6.8
|
7.2
|
7.6
|
11.8%
|
||
| We have a clearly defined process for version control. |
6.2
|
6.6
|
6.5
|
4.8%
|
||
| We have totally adequate human resources to get Y2K done. |
5.2
|
6.0
|
7.2
|
38.5%
|
||
| We have totally adequate skills for standards setting. |
6.5
|
7.1
|
7.3
|
12.3%
|
||
| We have totally adequate skills for software testing. |
6.6
|
7.1
|
7.7
|
16.7%
|
||
| We have a totally adequate skills for version control. |
6.6
|
7.1
|
7.6
|
15.2%
|
||
| ========================================================================= | ||||||
| Chart 3: Indicators of Attitudinal and Knowledge Improvements Thanks to Y2K | ||||||
| Y2K-related Indicators |
1997
|
1998
|
Preliminary 1999
|
Change 1997-99
|
||
| All functional areas and divisions are working closely together. |
5.9
|
7.2
|
7.4
|
25.4%
|
||
| Y2K on agenda of top executive governing board. |
7.2
|
8.2
|
8.6
|
19.4%
|
||
| Have had significant discussions with customers. |
4.4
|
6.2
|
7.4
|
68.2%
|
||
| Have had significant discussions with suppliers. |
4.9
|
6.8
|
7.5
|
53.1%
|
||
| Have had significant discussions with internal users. |
6.5
|
7.8
|
7.9
|
21.5%
|
||
| Have had significant discussions with hardware/software vendor. |
6.8
|
7.9
|
8.2
|
20.6%
|
||
| Has conducted business risk assessment regarding Y2K exposures. |
5.6
|
6.7
|
7.2
|
28.6%
|
||
| Top management really understands the scope of Y2K. |
5.8
|
6.7
|
7.3
|
25.9%
|
||
| Top IT management really understands the scope of Y2K. |
7.1
|
7.9
|
8.3
|
16.9%
|
||
| Y2K program manager is very confident of compliance in time. |
6.8
|
7.5
|
8.3
|
22.1%
|
||
| Y2K program manager thinks their authority is adequate to succeed. |
6.1
|
6.8
|
7.2
|
18.0%
|
||
| Y2K program manager’s confidence has increased in past 6 months. |
n/a
|
6.7
|
7.5
|
11.9%
|
||
| ========================================================================= | ||||||
| Key to all Charts | ||||||
| Sample size: |
186
|
144
|
75
|
|||
| Note that these are not identical samples each year: Random samples of respondents from the same population, but not all of the same respondents each year. | ||||||
| Scale: 1 (totally disagree) to 9 (totally agree). 5 is neutral. | ||||||
| n/a: Data not available for that year. Percentage change represents the difference between 1998 | ||||||
| Source: Society for Information (SIM) Y2K Working Group. Their complete 1997-1998 comparison study is available free at | ||||||
| http://www.year2000.unt.edu/ in the "Help 4 You" section. Complete 1996 results in their book – details at http://www.year2000.unt.edu/book. | ||||||
| ========================================================================= | ||||||
Copyright ® 1999 CMP Media Inc.