'''IT Managers and the Y2K credibility collapse'''

From ItManagersThreateningTechCareers

IT managers during that period should have had more accountability for their part in the deception, however those that remain in management are the ones with better connections, political skills, etc. And they are the more ruthless individuals who helped in the drastic cuts that followed Y2K, so they performed well in the short term. 


''IT managers had nothing to do with the 2000 bubble pop.  That was a product of crooked IPO pumping, speculative investing and financial analysts paid by the firms they were supposed to analyze.  Wasteful activities didn't drain company resources 1/10th as fast as deflating stock prices did. -- EricHodges''

The Y2K problem probably did not start with IT managers. Perhaps it was started by IT vendors and promoted heavily by the finance industry as you have said. However IT managers, as a group, should have been actively engaged to counteract external threats. Instead many has taken up the opportunity to engage in an empire building exercise. The fact that they are not alone in this process does not mean they do not have a significant part in fueling the problem.

Even the ones that kept a low profile could have been accussed of being guilty due to inaction. But most of them very happily went along with the process.

Similar statements could have been said about ItManagersAndDotcomBust, which I invite others to write about whether they have a significant role in it.

''I don't understand.  What is the "Y2K problem" and how is it threatening tech careers?  -- EH''
-----

I don't understand.  Many systems would not have worked after Y2K unless corrections were made.  Isn't a good idea to test your software to make sure it works after Y2K?