A status report: the year 2000 bug.

• Position: Includes related article

CASE STUDY

One congresswoman just announced she's working on legislation to require that new computer products sold to the government be able to process post-Year 2000 dates. Thank you, ma'am, but most companies know if they haven't demanded that by now, they're in trouble. In fact, when Financial Executive went looking for some slow starters on this date-conversion project, we hit a stone wall. Not surprising, most executives report (whether it's true or not) their companies are in the middle of the pack in addressing the computer bug - not too ignorant, not too aggressive.

Here's a glimpse at where four firms stand on the task.

Ameron International Pasadena, Calif. Project status: Analysis phase

The Year 2000 problem is wider spread than you may think,

warns Dewey H. Norton, vice president and controller of Ameron International. "It can actually hit a company well in advance of the Year 2000. Anybody whose planning horizon goes out 18 months will have problems in July of 1998. It also affects a great deal of software beyond business systems, like controls for machine tools. It can even affect pc-based systems."

With annual sales over $500 million, Ameron International manufactures concrete and fiberglass pipe systems and protective coatings for such giants as CSX, Disney and the U.S. Navy. Mark Peterson, American's corporate systems manager, says it's too soon to estimate the budget for their project since it started only two months ago, although he suspects that around 50 percent of the companywide systems will have a date problem. Norton adds that his company should face little out-of-pocket costs, "unless we have to hire programmers."

Like other companies, Ameron is attacking the problem from three directions. First, any new software must be compliant. Second, the latest releases of any upgrades must be compliant. Third, the company will identify and correct any inhouse applications that aren't compliant.

One dilemma for Ameron is whether to invest in upgrading one of the general business packages it now uses, since its vendor just sold the product to another vendor. "We're not sure we want to put the dollars into it that the new owners will require for the next upgrade," Peterson reasons. "Is it going to be cheaper to have our people make the changes, to buy the new module or to buy a whole new system?"

Peterson and Norton are unsure when they'll complete their project but hope it's done by the middle of 1998 to give them time for finetuning. "I don't think everybody can find every instance of a date," Peterson says. "People absolutely will be reworking...