Found a bug ....

[Cyberman]

Sadly the new system allowed reporting on past data, so a like-for-like report could be produced against the old data and compared to archived reports.

There was no way the head of dept was going to admit the reports for the last 5+ years were wrong as he was the one that approved and signed off the old system as fit for purpose.

Then based on date selected, if for an archived report prior to the new system, invoke the older code logic. The archived reports will then match up, but for current reports the data will be the new correct version.

[NoddY]

Blame IT - last refuge of the rascal.

[DimPrawn]

Staggering.

He should have got you to program a subtle date based change which would bring the reports in line over an 18 month period. Directors really would have no chance then...

Sadly the new system allowed reporting on past data, so a like-for-like report could be produced against the old data and compared to archived reports.

There was no way the head of dept was going to admit the reports for the last 5+ years were wrong as he was the one that approved and signed off the old system as fit for purpose.

[HairyArsedBloke]

He should have got you to program a subtle date based change which would bring the reports in line over an 18 month period. Directors really would have no chance then...

This is the first thing that comes to my mind too. Senior management, especially the board of directors need sensitive care and feeding. However, with all these increasing level of audits and legislation such things would get me sent back to pokey.

[EternalOptimist]

I have been in exactly this situation with a FTSE 100 company.

Background.

Board of directors of this PLC received monthly reports from old IT system for many years showing share holdings, interested parties, beneficial owners and who is buying and selling. This report was key to board level decision making.

My team was tasked with replacing this old system with a shiny new one from scratch.

After migrating the old data and running the new reports, the figures were very different.

Turns out the old system had several subtle bugs that resulted in misleading reports.


Result

Department head was tulipting himself. There was no way he could give them the new system as they would compare with old and see the big differences on the reports.

Therefore I was tasked with building in similar "bugs" into the new systems logic to ensure the reports matched.

The board of directors never new.

LOL. reminds me of this story. They had a system for info, but secretly didnt trust it

http://www.pointpark.edu/files/mba58...twonthewar.pdf

[Dow Jones]

BAs = bl00dy arshes

Don't think it was a 'coding error' (would have been easily spotted) , more like an incorrect 'business scenario' (I am referring to Moody's here). I have seen many in my time.

[Moscow Mule]

I have been in exactly this situation with a FTSE 100 company.

Background.

Board of directors of this PLC received monthly reports from old IT system for many years showing share holdings, interested parties, beneficial owners and who is buying and selling. This report was key to board level decision making.

My team was tasked with replacing this old system with a shiny new one from scratch.

After migrating the old data and running the new reports, the figures were very different.

Turns out the old system had several subtle bugs that resulted in misleading reports.


Result

Department head was tulipting himself. There was no way he could give them the new system as they would compare with old and see the big differences on the reports.

Therefore I was tasked with building in similar "bugs" into the new systems logic to ensure the reports matched.

The board of directors never new.

Staggering.

He should have got you to program a subtle date based change which would bring the reports in line over an 18 month period. Directors really would have no chance then...

[DimPrawn]

I have been in exactly this situation with a FTSE 100 company.

Background.

Board of directors of this PLC received monthly reports from old IT system for many years showing share holdings, interested parties, beneficial owners and who is buying and selling. This report was key to board level decision making.

My team was tasked with replacing this old system with a shiny new one from scratch.

After migrating the old data and running the new reports, the figures were very different.

Turns out the old system had several subtle bugs that resulted in misleading reports.


Result

Department head was tulipting himself. There was no way he could give them the new system as they would compare with old and see the big differences on the reports.

Therefore I was tasked with building in similar "bugs" into the new systems logic to ensure the reports matched.

The board of directors never new.

[DiscoStu]

Find the test script that the business signed off. Print it out and frame it.

^ His answer was way better than mine.

[oracleslave]

It makes me wonder; what would the members of the congregation do if they found a bug that, when corrected, would cause major disruption to a company’s financial position or even the markets?

Never been in that situation but I think I would provide the information to the relevant permie and then let them decide what to do with it.

[Pondlife]

It makes me wonder; what would the members of the congregation do if they found a bug that, when corrected, would cause major disruption to a company’s financial position or even the markets?

Find the test script that the business signed off. Print it out and frame it.

[DiscoStu]

Wasn’t me this time, but I sure know how this feels.


FT: Moody’s error gave top ratings to debt products


It makes me wonder; what would the members of the congregation do if they found a bug that, when corrected, would cause major disruption to a company’s financial position or even the markets?

Depends how much I disliked the dev team...

[HairyArsedBloke]

Wasn’t me this time, but I sure know how this feels.

Internal Moody’s documents seen by the FT show that some senior staff within the credit agency knew early in 2007 that products rated the previous year had received top-notch triple A ratings and that, after a computer coding error was corrected, their ratings should have been up to four notches lower.

FT: Moody’s error gave top ratings to debt products


It makes me wonder; what would the members of the congregation do if they found a bug that, when corrected, would cause major disruption to a company’s financial position or even the markets?