"Oracle is a very big corporation, and we're trying to do what we can to influence them," Huidekoper says.

She says Harvard has been busy pressing Oracle on more urgent system redesigns, like making the system's on-screen navigation easier. Since Oracle is unlikely to overhaul its basic code-assigning system at one customer's urging, code complaints are near the bottom of Harvard's priority list.

Huidekoper says a second reason for the long codes is that faculties--some of which are now complaining about code length--originally asked that the system be designed with additional code segments.

At the time, a number of faculty financial officers asked that the new system give them the capability to better track how their funds were spent (see graphic).

Some users, in fact, applaud the flexibility the additional digits provide.

"I presume that it benefits me because the bean-counters can budget more specifically," says Paul B. Cote, a lecturer at the design school who is also assistant director of computer resources. "I certainly wouldn't say that the hassle has outweighed the benefits."

Others say they are getting used to the longer codes with time.

"When I first came here I couldn't believe the 33-digit codes," says Nicola A. Sullivan, assistant director of finance for chemistry and earth and planetary sciences. "It could be compressed, but most of the number string is repetitive and it's not so bad."

Sullivan added, however, that the codes were easier at her previous place of work, MIT, which does not use Oracle for its financial system. There, the codes are only 13 digits long.

But project directors once rattled off 14-digit codes with ease, and some say with time, they'll be able to do the same with 33 digits.

"[It gives us] a lot more power," says Daniel S. Brody '71, assistant dean for financial management at the Kennedy School of Government, who is also a Crimson editor. "But I wouldn't mind if it was only 28 digits."