Year 2000 Focus Group

1. Edwin Woodcock took the chair in the absence of John Evans who regretted being unable to attend on this occasion. He welcomed everyone to the Guildhall, as both chairman and our host on this occasion. He pointed out that there are 757 days to go!

2. Testing Strategy : Lynn O'Connell, Millennium UK

Lynn's opening remarks took the view that testing is scary. Why? Because everything needs to be looked at - not just the things that have changed. Issues ignored during the Year 2000 programme are likely to pop up again during testing. Generally speaking we are not very effective or efficient at conducting tests, and we may not have considered testing early enough to influence key programme decisions. Then there is the sheer scale of testing, multiple level dependencies and the need to time travel with no time to test absolutely everything.

The 'scary' messages continued. Not many will achieve the benefits of automated test execution and not many can rely on previous test estimates to plan the effort required. Alongside all this there are the 'Business As Usual' changes to be tested too. And there are probably no saved test beds.

Lynn then developed her theme by reviewing the rationale for testing and considering what is really needed. She used a number of models and diagrams which are reproduced in Annex 1. She talked about defining test phases and provided some examples, suggesting that it is particularly useful to keep 3 testing objectives in view:

1. Will the technology support the business up to 2000?

2. Will the technology support the business as we tick over into 2000?

3. Will the technology support the business beyond 2000?

Keep these objectives in mind as you develop your test strategy.

It is important to involve all stakeholders in the Project Test Planning Process to help decide how much testing should be done. Each phase of testing should have its own plan, preparation, execution, and rework stages, with all tests ranked according to risk and key regression paths chosen. It is important to document what will not be tested.

Lynn went on to discuss other key aspects of test management design, with a cautionary word about test tools and their use. Her order of preference in this latter respect is to use tools for fixing and unit testing code; for creating environments; creating and manipulating test data; checking and comparing test results; running tests and, finally, simulating aspects of the target environment.

She concluded by touching on a few hints for some topical issues. She is frequently asked about the added value of end-to-end testing. It is difficult to generalise since the question needs to be addressed in the light of costs and business risk. A suggestion is to aim to cover the critical components of the key business applications, typically taking the top 10 processes and demonstrate that things will work together. Test execution experience should be reflected in your support plan. Test the Business Continuity Plan. Testware needs to be included within Configuration Management. Tools usage needs skilled project management.

3. Embedded Systems problems : Alan Hutchinson, Business Director, Millennium UK

The subject of Alan Hutchinson's presentation might also have been considered 'scary'. He reminded the meeting that embedded systems are to be found everywhere in modern life, frequently invisible to the user and, certainly, the scale of the problem has not yet been established. To give an idea, 1 billion programmable devices were sold in 1996.

His definition of an embedded system is:

"Any electronic system designed to perform a specific stand alone function which has the capability to process data in a complex manner"

We might readily identify such systems as fax machines, telephone systems, lift controllers, video surveillance, process controllers, building management. The latter typifies a system which if it fails to operate on 1st January 2000 could close down your mainframe operation irrespective of your efforts to make your IT systems compliant.

Alan considered how such systems use dates, e.g. for calibration, diagnostics, archiving, boot up. Often they are application specific, e.g. the Rugby Clock presents the year as 2 digits and is expected to do so from 2000 onwards. Failures will be manifest in arithmetic, comparisons, sorting, by use of incorrect leap year algorithms, storage register filling up. The latter example will affect some older global positioning systems in August 1999. Equipment that can be at risk are: valves, actuators, flow meters, process supervision and optimisation, plant management systems, premises equipment, environment control, security access. Many systems use dates but don't actually display the date.

Testing can be difficult. Some devices operate 24 hours a day and cannot normally be taken out of service for checking. The Christmas holiday is often the only opportunity. Christmas 1998 may be the only opportunity left! Dealing with embedded systems is very much a risk management exercise. It may require some of your best people and close co-operation with your vendors.

Answering a question about testing systems which may be difficult to get at, Alan suggested that it may be necessary to use simulation with your vendor's help or the assistance of a third party laboratory.

A second question focused on rectifying problems. This could be the subject of a presentation at a separate meeting. Any member who would like to pursue this should get in touch with the Secretary.

4 ICL Update : Peter Iles

Peter provided his usual useful update:

(i) He observed with some concern that records show that few sites whom ICL would expect to require the Year 2000 enabling Kit have actually downloaded it.

(ii) ICL is currently updating the Year 2000 Facilities Guide. It should complete authoring stage by 22nd December and hopefully it will be available in January. News of its publication will be posted on the ICL web site [http://www.icl.com/year2000/year2k.html]

(iii) ICL are considering making available some software to assist with the ageing of data in IDMS databases, and enable dates to be changed in flight. Member interest in this facility is sought.

(iv) Reports in AXiS News (Winter 1997 edition) and the minutes of the last Year 2000 Focus Group meeting referring to the achievements of the AA in resource terms during a pilot project omitted to credit the use of ICL's Windowing and Virtual Date facilities. [Secretary's note : my apologies to ICL and the AA]

(v) Issue 10 of TB23 is now available. Copy at Annex 3. Anyone who needs the baseline version list should contact Peter Iles [tel: 0161 223 1301 x 2189: or email: P.V.Iles@man0504.wins.icl.co.uk]

(vi) Peter suggested that our next Focus Group meeting could visit ICL West Gorton and make use of their new visitor facility with opportunities for presentations by his colleagues on Year 2000 services and products.

5. User Experience

(i) The latest version of the Product Compliance record was distributed (copy enclosed for those unable to attend the meeting). Members were asked to provide any comments, update information to Don Folland who would happily receive such information by post, fax, email. Don reported that he had received an enquiry about CUBIT. Are there other members using it? None present at the meeting were.

It was suggested that we consider offering our Compliance record to an organisation, such as Weblaw [Halberstam Elias & Co : http://www.weblaw.co.uk] which maintains compliance data on the World Wide Web. Don will investigate.

(ii) It is possible to export data from test environments running with a date beyond 1st January 2000 and import that data into a current date environment. ICL strongly advise against moving the whole system back and forth in time other than by taking a strategic system archive before first moving forward in time.

(iii) How are members approaching the task of creating test data? Some are using small databases; one member is using an existing large databases and ageing relevant fields. This is proving a significant job.

(iv) Are members finding problems in applications which are looking beyond 2000, e.g. mortgage systems? Very few reported so far. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council have some systems already referring to dates three years ahead. More members may report in the New Year when two year look-ahead systems kick in.

(v) Gateshead also reported problems with losing staff, some 25% this year. Other members are beginning to experience losses. In the USA EDS are losing their project managers. River Island Clothing reported that 'golden handcuffs' have been introduced to reduce the risk in their company.

(vi) How many members have testing strategies in place? About 3 members sites responded and felt confident that they would meet their target dates.

(vii) How many membrs have responsibility for embedded systems? Very few of those present responded but the presentation earlier in the day had raised an alert.

REPORTS

The States of Guernsey Electricity Board are working to a target of October 1998 for mainframe and bespoke systems. They have recently taken delivery of a Trimetra. Fortunately they had introduced a policy that all in-house systems would be year 2000 compliant from initial development. In code audit so far they have found only 4 problems but the systems have yet to be tested. On the PC side, of 95 PCs about 4% have been tested of which 3 will need to be replaced. Their overall concern is how to test to provide confidence. They expect there will be more problems on the engineering side with embedded systems

This report led to a question to ICL about the possibility of publishing generic test results. This is a difficult question as testing is mostly user application specific. Peter Iles will consider whether anything can be done.

The London Borough of Merton's Year 2000 programme has been slow to get under way although initiated in early 1997. Dave Kiddell now has responsibility for the programme and hopes to get down to resolving problems in the New Year.

Cardiff City Council are currently assessing the scale of the task and having difficulty getting all departments to respond. There are 100 IT applications , both in-house and third party. The audit should complete by 31st December 1997. Response from third party suppliers has been good,. Embedded systems will be the responsibility of the Director of Property Services who will need to look at all properties under the Council's jurisdiction. Target for completion of that audit is end 1998.

to AXiS Home Page Year 2000 Focus Group