Y2K Site Map | Terms of Use | Problem | Steps | Certification | Briefings | Compliance | Solutions | BIOS | Test & Evaluation | Cost

The following Y2K material has been kept available by MITRE for historical purposes only and has not been updated unless noted.

Interface Agreements

When an interface must be modified (as is the case when bringing one or both of the interfacing systems into Y2K compliance), it is important that the modifications be coordinated closely. The best method for establishing this coordination is the negotiation of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) or memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the affected parties.

As can be seen from the definitions below, the MOA is used when there are interacting actions required by all parties. Generally, this is the case when making Y2K modifications, hence, the MOA is the preferred form of agreement.

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Memoranda that define general areas of conditional agreement between two or more parties -- what one party does depends on what the other party does (e.g., one party agrees to provide support if the other party provides the materiel). MOAs that establish responsibilities for providing recurring reimbursable support should be supplemented with support agreements that define the support, basis for reimbursement for each category of support, the billing and payment process, and other terms and conditions of the agreement. For help in writing an MOA, see Guidelines for Writing an MOA.

 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Memoranda that define general areas of understanding between two or more parties. MOUs explain what each party plans to do; however, what each party does is not dependent of what the other party does (e.g., does not require reimbursement or other support from the receiver).

It is possible to overdo just about anything, and establishing an interface definition is one of those places. When the system on the other side of the interface is "owned" by an organization that is not part of or subject to your management chain, or when that system is remote, a formal interface definition utilizing an MOA and and an Interface Control Document (ICD) is very appropriate.

However, when the system on the other end of the interface is "owned" by another part of your organization, where, presumably, face-to-face communication can help avoid misunderstandings, the MOA can be less formal. It is completely acceptable for the agreement on interface modifications to be documented in a set of e-mail messages, on in a handwritten notebook, or even (although this might be stretching it, particularly if the janitorial staff is prone to erasing them) a whiteboard in some place convenient to all parties.

The key is to establish the interface agreement at a level of formality and detail such that all parties are clear on what has been agreed to, but without so much formality that maintaining the agreement is a task that equals or overshadows the job of making the interface modifications.