This Text file is old! In a 🏛️Museum, an unsorted archive of (user-)pages. (Saved from Geocities in Oct-2009. The archival story: oocities.org)
--------------------------------------- (To 🚫report any bad content: archivehelp @ gmail.com)

CACI: COOL TO FIX Y2K
  
  Nancy Peters is a recent addition to CACI from Software AG.
  Because she considers Y2K a reengineering (rather than
  maintenance) problem, Peters was attracted to CACI's
  continued emphasis on reengineering technology, feeling
  that the company's solution deserved more prominence.
  Before her arrival, CACI had an operations group, a
  heavy recruiting program, and an infrastructure in place,
  but not much visibility. Peters has been working
  hard to change that.
  
  Peters believes that developing project management proficiency
  is as important as utilizing current software tools -- both
  CACI strengths. The federal government has often struggled
  with finishing projects on time and under budget, and Y2K
  offers no time extensions. This concrete deadline concerns
  Peters because she sees agencies less interested in
  project/process management and more obsessed with detailing
  every little program and system. "Over half the Y2K effort
  should be spent on project management, with 40-50% spent
  on testing, and the last 10% or so on fixing the 'fix'.
  But agencies aren't getting on with things. The goal is to
  solve Y2K, not have the most accurate assessment we could
  make in terms of lines of code."
  
  With Y2K a part of CACI's standard methodology from the
  start, Peters claims that CACI was "fixing Y2K before
  fixing Y2K was cool." CACI's technical folk consider the
  Y2K fix a subset of the more complex process of
  reengineering complete systems. Renevade (CACI's
  reengineering methodology) has been applied to Navy,
  FAA, and National Archives systems and already contains
  the process necessary to fix Y2K. The Restore 2000
  project could be definied as the "laser-beam" version
  of Renevade: it's the specific piece that deals
  with Y2K, gathering information about and building
  an artifact repository of an agency's system.
  CACI leaves this information database with the agency,
  so that after the Y2K ends, they can hopefully return
  and totally reengineer the system.
  
  After examining numerous claims, Peters confirms that
  no real silver bullet exists. However, CACI's automated
  tools can accelerate code-fixing by 30-40%. CACI maintains
  a non-exclusive partnership with Viasoft, including the
  use of their MVS/mainframe/COBOL tools, bidding on projects
  with them, and supporting them on personal commercial
  projects. Of major concern to both companies is how to
  get toolsets inside agencies without slowing down
  reengineering. CACI acquires tools from other partners,
  such as Visionette (an AS400 supplier) and Paritis. The
  tools they apply to a particular solution depends on
  their client's specific needs.
  
  Peters credits DoD agencies for taking large steps to
  fix Y2K, stemming from their authority structure. "[In
  the DoD], if word comes down from above that something
  will be done, then people definitely pay attention."
  But Peters also says that, in addition to getting
  hung up on "code counting," some DoD agencies have
  forgotten about data exchange. "They all share information
  with each other. I don't see many of them wondering
  what will happen if the data they normally process
  doesn't arrive, or if the data they ship out isn't
  compatible with the recipient."
  
  Peters points out how most agencies are resisting a
  standard date format, preferring one that is personally
  convenient. "This is why Y2K happened in the first place,"
  explains Peters. "An agency's solution might be more
  internally efficient, but if the DoD's standard data
  exchange has an 8-digit date field instead of
  a 6-digit one, they're just building another problem
  into their solution."
  
  Peters believes that most civilian agencies (except for SSA)
  are in extreme denial about Y2K's impact. "The SSA's had
  to deal with this for a long time, due to their line of
  work, and Kathy Adams has been doing a fabulous job,
  but I still haven't seen much from the Treasury. Citizens
  might think it great not to pay taxes in 2000, but it's
  not great for the government. Who knows? Maybe we'll have
  a flat tax that year."
  
  And besides OMB's decree that no extra money will be
  allocated for Y2K, agencies are structured in ways that
  make it hard to start moving. According to Peters, a
  CIO is responsible for all information systems in her
  agency and might even have a Y2K project office person,
  but neither office has its own budget: Both people
  must resort to "cheerleading" in order to motivate
  others to move. "The money sits in the program offices.
  Those offices aren't eager to hand money over, especially
  for Y2K, when they want to focus directly on the
  agency mission. This disconnection is an infrastructure
  problem to be dealt with."
  
  To get wheels turning, Peters advises agencies to
  just "start something, somewhere." When an agency
  starts a small project or assesses a tiny area and
  realizes how interlocked systems are and how
  complex Y2K is, it suddenly begins to move. "CACI
  could help agencies move through the process and
  reach their goal. It's not the grunt labor help
  [that defines our work], it's the encouragement
  and motivation we could offer."
  
  Besides heel-dragging, Peters says that even the
  aware folk claim they just don't have money. "I think
  we have to be greater alarmists than this," says
  Peters. "We just can't sit back and wait." If
  people don't find funds themselves, no one else will.
  
  Peters is deeply concerned over the fixed amount of
  money to be allocated between Y2K and other projects.
  DoD has stated that if funds can't cover Y2K and
  other existing contracts, the existing contracts will
  be dropped in favor of Y2K. Contractor revenues will
  suffer greatly if thousands of contracted employees
  are suddenly told to go home if not doing Y2K work.
  CACI is making sure to promote their Y2K capabilities
  to agencies.
  
  Although government now realizes that Y2K isn't going
  away, Peters fears that it might be too late. With less
  than 1000 days remaining until January 1, 2000, can
  agencies still find help? "If someone comes to me and
  says, 'My house is burning down, help me rearrange
  the furniture,' well, I really don't want to go in
  there," admits Peters. "Agencies who wait are going
  to miss the boat. I once overheard someone say that
  the government will have to use 'Harry's Aluminum
  Siding, Screen Door, and Y2K Company' to fix Y2K,
  because no one else has the time to handle the
  project this late in the game."
  
  Consultants are also hindered by the dynamics of
  the hiring process. Although they must constantly
  train employees, they also can't afford to have
  trained employees who aren't working, so people
  aren't trained until jobs are imminent. Agencies
  interested in hiring consultants must get started now.
  
  Some have been. "We recruit continuously," explains
  Peters, "advertise, then suddenly get a request for a
  large number of people and have to scramble for more.
  I think this pace will accelerate up to year 2000 itself,
  and even afterwards there will be some business
  mopping up whatever problems are left." 
  
  What can you do, with Y2K looming ever closer on
  the horizon?  "I run as fast as I can," Peters says.
  "It's really gotten crazy."


CACI's Web site is located at year2000.caci.com.
CACI is Year*2000 certified (see sidebar, page 000).
Among its current contracts is a $38 million
partnership (including other vendors) with
Montgomery County, Maryland. 


-----------------------------------------------------
(c) 1997 by Fed Services, Inc.
Electronic Government, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. ???.

Material to be used solely in regards to examining
my credentials for employment.