Odd doings in California

Interesting article in the Aug. 18 issue of E-week (I get it some weeks
late), page 47; seems that Arnie and State Controller Chiang are at odds:
Schwartzenegger recently signed an executive order cutting the pay of
200,000 state workers to minimum wage levels as a way of forcing the state
legislature to approve a budget (now more than a month into the fiscal
year).

Chiang has said it can't be done. He isn't refusing, but says it's
impossible "because of the age of the state's payroll system which is based
on Cobol, it would take at least six months to reconfigure the system to
send out those new minimum-wage checks".

That's a bunch of bs and nonsense - or deliberate bafflegab. The age of the
system per se has nothing to do with it: conceivably it is loaded with
bolt-ons and fixes, which is what he may really mean. (Nor, of course, is
the language to blame). But surely there have been mass rate changes in the
past - as in a new contract - and there must be people who work with the
code base. Has he never heard of quick-&-dirty fixes?

He adds this: "then, when the order is reversed and those 200,000 can go
back to getting regular pay, it would take another 10 months or so to get
the system back to where it was". Again - bs! If it took 6 months to learn
the system well enough to do the first change, those involved would then
know enough to reverse the change in a much shorter period than 6 months:
unless they are all fired after the first change! If Arnie really believes
this he should farm out the entire system to somebody (who does payrolls?)
and fire Chiang and whoever is advising him!

The story concludes with a description of IBM's determination to train
this-generation programmers in its mainframe technologies, including Cobol.
They are doing much business on the mainframes and the figure is growing.

If anybody can reverse the decline of Cobol, it's IBM!

PL

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:17:59 -0500, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:

>Chiang has said it can't be done. He isn't refusing, but says it's
>impossible "because of the age of the state's payroll system which is based
>on Cobol, it would take at least six months to reconfigure the system to
>send out those new minimum-wage checks".

Recruit, hire and train contractors: 30 days
Analysis: 30 days
Setup test environment: 30 days
Development -- change programs: 2 days
Unit testing: 28 days
System testing: 30 days
Regression testing: 14 days
Production build and deployment: 7 days
Dress rehersal and spot checks: 14 days
Obtain approvals: 7 days

Total 6.5 months

In article <gnd1c4trsc8kgqg6po1vrnj5ffvtuussen@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:17:59 -0500, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
>>Chiang has said it can't be done. He isn't refusing, but says it's
>>impossible "because of the age of the state's payroll system which is based
>>on Cobol, it would take at least six months to reconfigure the system to
>>send out those new minimum-wage checks".
>
>Recruit, hire and train contractors: 30 days
>Analysis: 30 days
>Setup test environment: 30 days
>Development -- change programs: 2 days

Not... really. This is Payroll, remember... civil-service payroll, at
that, and my own recent, small experience shows that there are intricacies
which might be a bit more demanding than a universal MOVE LS-MIN-WAGE TO
D431652-EMP-MSTR-PRIM-SAL.

For instance... what about savings-plans contributions? It is not
difficult to imagine that during a bout of contract-negotiations it was
decided that if your salary grade is CS-12 or higher then you can opt to
have $y/pay periodof your hour-rate equivalent put into the savings
plan, not to exceed n%, a sort of minimum-participation amount of pre-tax
income.

If the grade is high enough the minimum contribution can, quite easily,
exceed the current minimum wage... so the situation arises where you are
cut a negative-sum check. True, a few folks might believe this is what
many civil servants deserve... but there might be a law or two that stands
in the way.

There are all kinds of 'if you are in this plan your participation must be
at least (y%) or (WS-CODED-AMT) or a hardcoded figure'... AND the payroll
system is not working in vacuo; files are sent to the local authorities,
the Fed, savings/investment plan providers and each and any of those might
have range checking to insure integrity of data... 'Hmmmmm, the delta on
this guy's gross is -93.683%, that can't be right, let's call Jimmy and
see if the file format changed'.

Then there are the 'gamings' of the system... is an employee's on-call
rate the same as their new minimum-wage salary? Some people are
accustomed to carrying pagers and being ready, at a moment's notice, to
wade into a 2:am ABEND... others, with a few years under their belts, may
have negotiated a salary clause along the lines of 'unless I can be
stinking, blind, passed-out drunk then I am on *your* time and you'll pay
me at least ($z/hr or percentage of salary, whichever is greater) for
it'... and I have seen timecards submitted showing forty hours of Annual
Leave Taken along with 148 hours of On-Call Hours... because they were
doing an upgrade, you know, and Linda - you know, the one the boss likes
to watch as she passes? - Linda gets to bill for On-Call Hours during
upgrades and nothing in the contract says she *can't* bill for them while
she's on leave...

.... and it goes on... and then there's the little matter of reversing and
auditing the changes once the brou-ha-ha is over... *and* maintaining a
full Production load while all this is going on. The 'all ya gotta do is'
approach is quite Managerial, I'll agree... and it might even be a good
thing, in this case, since if God or the Devil or both are in the details
then it looks like there's a healthy separation of Church and State.

Seems like I mentioned something about this a few years back... ahhhhh,
there you go, from
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/2a6d8995317b7e78?dmode=source>
(appropriately enough bearing the Subject: Re: Modernization of COBOL
Applications)

--begin quoted text:

Let me sing this back to see if I'm learning the song.

1) Initiate customer update request.
A) Does the initiating user have any customer update authority?
i) No - send 'not you, buddy' notice and terminate transaction
ii) Yes - CONTINUE.

2) Prepare to and accept user input to identify customer for update.

3) Validate input
A) is input in valid format (all letters/numbers in the right places)?
i) No - send 'bad format' message and GO TO 2)
ii) Yes - see if customer exists in system
a) No - send 'not here - re-enter or use A)dd function'
and GO TO 2)
b) Yes - does user have auth to update this class of customer?
1) No - send 'lowly peon' msg and GO TO 2
2) Yes - CONTINUE

4) Prepare to and accept user input to modify identified customer.

5) Validate input
A) is input in valid format (codes entered are valid update types)?
i) No - send bad code(s) msg and GO TO 4)
ii) Yes - are codes valid for this kind of customer?
a) No - send 'not for this one, you don't' msg and GO TO 4)
b) Yes - send 'are you sure?' msg and get response
1) is response valid?
A) No - send 'Y/N, please?' msg and GO TO 5.A.ii.b
.... etc.

Now... the question of 'the extraction of business rules' and 'the
extraction of logic rules' is where it gets sticky. Take the example of
an insurance-claims system. It seems logical and businesslike to allow
for a claim to be made for the treatment of uterine infections... BUT NOT
if the policy's group doesn't have a rider to cover such treatments...

.... then it's OK... BUT NOT IF the claimant is a male...

.... BUT IF the claimant is a male who has a female relative who is also
covered by the policy then it's OK...

.... BUT NOT IF the claimant is a male who has a female relative who is
also covered who has had a hysterectomy...

.... BUT IF the claimant is a male who has a female relative who is also
covered who has had a hysterectomy AND the date of the hysterectomy is
greater than the date of the uterine infection treatment (someone left the
claim in a drawer for six months) then it's OK...

.... BUT NOT IF the claimant is a male who has a female relative who is
also covered who has had a hysterectomy AND the date of the hysterectomy
is greater than the date of the uterine infection treatment (someone left
the claim in a drawer for six months) AND the date of the uterine
infection treatment precedes the effective date for policy's rider which
covers such treatments...

.... et and cetera. I think I'll stop now.

(note to newbies - it might be helpful to keep situations like this in
mind the next time you ask 'why would *anyone* code an IF statement that
goes on for four-and-a-half pages of greenbar?')

(addendum to note to newbies - if you need to then ask a Local Geezer
'What is 'greenbar'?')

--end quoted text

DD

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <gnd1c4trsc8kgqg6po1vrnj5ffvtuussen@4ax.com>,
> Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:17:59 -0500, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Chiang has said it can't be done. He isn't refusing, but says it's
>>> impossible "because of the age of the state's payroll system which is based
>>> on Cobol, it would take at least six months to reconfigure the system to
>>> send out those new minimum-wage checks".
>> Recruit, hire and train contractors: 30 days
>> Analysis: 30 days
>> Setup test environment: 30 days
>> Development -- change programs: 2 days
>
> Not... really. This is Payroll, remember... civil-service payroll, at
> that, and my own recent, small experience shows that there are intricacies
> which might be a bit more demanding than a universal MOVE LS-MIN-WAGE TO
> D431652-EMP-MSTR-PRIM-SAL.
>
> For instance... what about savings-plans contributions? It is not
> difficult to imagine that during a bout of contract-negotiations it was
> decided that if your salary grade is CS-12 or higher then you can opt to
> have $y/pay periodof your hour-rate equivalent put into the savings
> plan, not to exceed n%, a sort of minimum-participation amount of pre-tax
> income.
>
> If the grade is high enough the minimum contribution can, quite easily,
> exceed the current minimum wage... so the situation arises where you are
> cut a negative-sum check. True, a few folks might believe this is what
> many civil servants deserve... but there might be a law or two that stands
> in the way.
>
> There are all kinds of 'if you are in this plan your participation must be
> at least (y%) or (WS-CODED-AMT) or a hardcoded figure'... AND the payroll
> system is not working in vacuo; files are sent to the local authorities,
> the Fed, savings/investment plan providers and each and any of those might
> have range checking to insure integrity of data... 'Hmmmmm, the delta on
> this guy's gross is -93.683%, that can't be right, let's call Jimmy and
> see if the file format changed'.
>
> Then there are the 'gamings' of the system... is an employee's on-call
> rate the same as their new minimum-wage salary? Some people are
> accustomed to carrying pagers and being ready, at a moment's notice, to
> wade into a 2:am ABEND... others, with a few years under their belts, may
> have negotiated a salary clause along the lines of 'unless I can be
> stinking, blind, passed-out drunk then I am on *your* time and you'll pay
> me at least ($z/hr or percentage of salary, whichever is greater) for
> it'... and I have seen timecards submitted showing forty hours of Annual
> Leave Taken along with 148 hours of On-Call Hours... because they were
> doing an upgrade, you know, and Linda - you know, the one the boss likes
> to watch as she passes? - Linda gets to bill for On-Call Hours during
> upgrades and nothing in the contract says she *can't* bill for them while
> she's on leave...
>
> ... and it goes on... and then there's the little matter of reversing and
> auditing the changes once the brou-ha-ha is over... *and* maintaining a
> full Production load while all this is going on. The 'all ya gotta do is'
> approach is quite Managerial, I'll agree... and it might even be a good
> thing, in this case, since if God or the Devil or both are in the details
> then it looks like there's a healthy separation of Church and State.
>

You missed the 5000 lines of code dealing with specific amounts coming
out of specific funds ... you know, where 3.75 an hour of Joe's salary
is allocated to state funding, but 2.25 is federal program 167-A53-z,
from back in 1915, and 1.50 an hour comes out of capital, because the
1915 program is still considered new. And that those have to add up
correctly to the contract amount ... which does not exist, but is still
set to last years.

Donald

"donald tees" <donaldtees@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:PpKdnR5-U_d5vVzVnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@golden.net...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> Then there are the 'gamings' of the system... is an employee's on-call
>> rate the same as their new minimum-wage salary? [...]
>> 1915 program.....

So much concern about these details that nobody has identified the
fundamental problem here:

Government is too big and simply has to pay too many people.

MCM

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 07:13:15 -0500, "Michael Mattias" <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:

>"donald tees" <donaldtees@execulink.com> wrote in message
>news:PpKdnR5-U_d5vVzVnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@golden.net...
>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>> Then there are the 'gamings' of the system... is an employee's on-call
>>> rate the same as their new minimum-wage salary? [...]
>>> 1915 program.....
>
>So much concern about these details that nobody has identified the
>fundamental problem here:
>
>Government is too big and simply has to pay too many people.

Every industry goes through a consolidation phase in which stronger states acquire weaker
ones. Thus, governmental efficiency improves through elimination of redundant employees
and products.

Texas governor Rick Perry announced the acquisition of California will be final 4Q 2008,
subject to FTC and taxpayer approval. He cited synergies between their scenery and his
state's capitalization. In a similar vein, New York has begun preliminary talks with
Florida.

To defend against predatory acquisition (hostile takeover), northeastern states will be
forming the New England Union in 2010. The sole holdout is maverick New Hampshire, which
is pursuing a joint venture with Montana. Industry analysts think such a partnership is
unlikely. Sensing vulnerability, Canada will soon open an embassy in Nashua. A Canadian
spokesman said, "It's a natural, given their high tech and our cheap labor."

Wyoming filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy last month.

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:58:15 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>Now... the question of 'the extraction of business rules' and 'the
>extraction of logic rules' is where it gets sticky. Take the example of
>an insurance-claims system. It seems logical and businesslike to allow
>for a claim to be made for the treatment of uterine infections... BUT NOT
>if the policy's group doesn't have a rider to cover such treatments...
>
>... then it's OK... BUT NOT IF the claimant is a male...

Now why would a computer program need to disallow uterine treatments
for males?

I suppose fraud analysis can be done within the standard claim
programs, but is that a good design?

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 07:13:15 -0500, "Michael Mattias"
<mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:

>>> Then there are the 'gamings' of the system... is an employee's on-call
>>> rate the same as their new minimum-wage salary? [...]
>>> 1915 program.....
>
>So much concern about these details that nobody has identified the
>fundamental problem here:
>
>Government is too big and simply has to pay too many people.

How does that change how long it would take to implement a coding
change?

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

Robert wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:17:59 -0500, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
>> Chiang has said it can't be done. He isn't refusing, but says it's
>> impossible "because of the age of the state's payroll system which
>> is based on Cobol, it would take at least six months to reconfigure
>> the system to send out those new minimum-wage checks".
>
> Recruit, hire and train contractors: 30 days
> Analysis: 30 days
> Setup test environment: 30 days
> Development -- change programs: 2 days
> Unit testing: 28 days
> System testing: 30 days
> Regression testing: 14 days
> Production build and deployment: 7 days
> Dress rehersal and spot checks: 14 days
> Obtain approvals: 7 days
>
> Total 6.5 months

Oh bother!

There's a field for hourly rate for every employee and virtually every
employee has had their rate changed once upon a time.

So, call up an employee record. Change the hourly rate to the minimum wage.
Punch the "save" button.

At 30 seconds for each employee, and using 50 trained monkeys, the task
could be done in less than a week.

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:3if2c4pnfobqrjh02k6pjbk8o4hcb7r4dl@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:58:15 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>Now... the question of 'the extraction of business rules' and 'the
>>extraction of logic rules' is where it gets sticky. Take the example of
>>an insurance-claims system. It seems logical and businesslike to allow
>>for a claim to be made for the treatment of uterine infections... BUT NOT
>>if the policy's group doesn't have a rider to cover such treatments...
>>
>>... then it's OK... BUT NOT IF the claimant is a male...
>
> Now why would a computer program need to disallow uterine treatments
> for males?
>
> I suppose fraud analysis can be done within the standard claim
> programs, but is that a good design?

Speaking from experience, this particular situation is treated as a "data
entry error" (procedure code inconsistent with the patient's gender,
standard remittance adjustment reason code value =7), not as an attempt to
defraud. The claim is processed and paid less the charges submitted for
this service line.

Also speaking from experience, fraud analysis is a whole 'nother thing, and
at least where your tax dollars are concerned (Medicare), I will guarantee
you fraud WILL be detected, but it takes a while.

If you want to commit Medicare fraud, you can depend on some time where
things will be good for you, but you better have your travel plans ready to
move somewhere without an extradition agreement.

MCM