There being no national dialogue in the offing, those of us who see Y2K as a serious societal challenge need to find ways to more sharply define the foundational facts and inferences upon which we can reach general agreement, as well as what "facts" and "inferences" are in dispute and why. Unless that occurs, the clear and calming Establishment Non-Event Forecast in the mass media will continue to trump the cacophony of voices that say otherwise.

Read, then please repond...http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/DSA/VP/vp9915.htm

~C~

-- Critt Jarvis (middleground@critt.com), April 14, 1999

Answers

OK, I'll bite.

"1. We live in a massively dependent and inter-connected global economy. ... This reality is made possible [by], in fact requires, electricity, computers, and automation. It is a vast, mechanized, just-in-time, highly complex electrified ecology."

Of Porlier's eight points, this is the one about which I feel least able to evaluate or forecast. Just how interconnected, mechanized, electrified and computerized is the global or US economy anyway?

It has seemed to me ever since shortly after I "got it" that the Y2k doomers were overemphasizing this mechanical-like interconnectedness and underrating good ol' human ingenuity and flexibility, while the Y2k pollys were doing the opposite.

"2. ... The time required for the entire process of remediation is more critical than the given complexity of any specific system."

Those who've waited until now to check for Y2k problems in their systems may well find that even if their problems are few and small, remediating them will be surprisingly major.

There have been times when I needed a small simple part for my car, but it took a frustratingly long time to find and obtain that part. Because it had to be the right small simple part.

"3. Every global survey ... indicates that large numbers of major corporations and government agencies in every nation are seriously behind in either starting or acting on Y2K. ... The problem gets worse as one surveys small and medium-sized entities ... "

Ay yi yi ...

"4. Even in the countries furthest along ... most major enterprises started so late that they were forced to limit their efforts to those systems deemed to be critical to business survival or to essential delivery of government services and benefits. ..."

So we'll see how accurate they've been in determining what's critical or essential, won't we? That'll make for lots of discussion verbiage, too -- what's essential for you may be of trivial value to me.

"... Many of these "mission critical" projects have missed one interim progress milestone after another. ..."

Of course. It's human nature. Nothing new. But the clocks don't care - Y2k approacheth anyway.

BTW, I see this commonly used as ammunition by doomers, but a polly might say, "Yeah, 'critical' projects slip over and over and little really happens. We'll find that a lot of what we categorized as critical really wasn't, and its failure won't do all that much damage." See point #1.

"... Even larger numbers of date sensitive systems deemed only "important" or "supportive" have been left untouched for lack of resources with unforeseeable Y2K results. (The death of a thousand cuts?)"

Folks, we're going to be seriously inconvenienced next year. Precisely how, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure there's going to be an awful lot of frustration. Politeness and ability to find humor in difficulties may be survival skills, what with all your neighbors stocking up on ammo and such. Don't take out your irritations on your family -- beat a pillow with a tennis racket. (Got tennis racket?)

"5. If historic software project experience is relevant to large Y2K system efforts, ..."

A big if. I like the argument that Y2k projects are more like maintenance than like new system creation ...

"... contingency planning is becoming pervasive and essential for corporations, governments, national guards, and local emergency management directors."

... but agree with this anyway.

"6. Any phenomena in a large class of events typically sorts out into a bell-shaped curve. ..."

Bzzzzt! Invalid generalization! Lots of phenomena don't.

"... We should expect Y2K outcomes to do the same. ..."

Show me the reasoning.

"... How the failures will impact the successes and the citizenry in general is unknowable."

Well, that's safe enough to conclude.

All in all, point #6 is weak.

"7. In the U.S., as elsewhere, the availability of electricity is the linchpin issue. If it stays up, however disruptive other failures may be, the problems will be manageable over time, however painful. Who could not be encouraged by the increasing number of positive reports from those in the electricity and telecommunications industries? ..."

Who? Skeptics and doomers.

"... And these not only from their public information officers, but increasingly from programmers and systems engineers actually doing the remediation and testing. ..."

I'm willing to believe when I can see the test results.

And I've seen enough (overall Y2k evidence, not just for the electric and telecomm industries) to justify changing my positions on the 0-10 scales by 0.5 recently. Yes, I'm 0.5 of a scale point more optimistic than I was two months ago, but I'm also going to be really stubborn about going further.

"... Nevertheless, no matter how much progress individually being reported from these industries as well as banking and securities, no matter now successful their industry-wide systems' testing simulations are, there is no way to do real time, end-to-end testing. ..."

... which is why I'm going to be really stubborn about going further.

"... So far, the industry is unable or unwilling to give us the specifics -- locale by locale."

I don't expect this to change.

"8. I keep being told that there are many more successfully complete Y2K efforts than are being publicly reported for a variety of reasons. ..."

Okay, this is believable ...

"... I am also being told by many in positions to know that many Y2K certified compliant products and systems (that are essential to an organization's effectiveness) aren't; ..."

... and this is equally believable.

"... that CEOs and CIOs are not being told how far behind schedule some Y2K projects really are; ..."

Uhmmmm ... I seem to recall fudging a non-Y2k progress report or two (blush) ... when I could work until midnight to make reality match the report by the next day ... ahem ... or something like that ... Doesn't everybody?

"... and that there are CEOs who do know they are behind and are not acknowledging it publicly. ..."

See!? See!? They fudge, too. Fudge greases the wheels of commerce.

(But the clocks don't care.)

"... So when we read a summary of the Fortune 500 SEC self-reports at last year's end, what should we do with the 96 companies that either provided no date for finishing their Y2K remediation ..."

Bronze star for honesty.

"... or use such meaningless legalese as "in a timely manner," ..."

Ten demerits and a hundred wet-noodle lashes.

"... or the dozens of others whose completion milestones have already slipped?"

A concentrated sternly disapproving stare, and a copy of the home video showing you whaling away at a pillow with the tennis racket.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 14, 1999.

Critt: A good article. The 8 points are worth posting here:

1.We live in a massively dependent and inter-connected global economy. This includes extensive trade in raw materials, foodstuffs, component parts, and finished goods. To function effectively, this trade requires systems of transportation, finance, utilities, telecommunications, and public safety. This reality is made possible, in fact requires, electricity, computers, and automation. It is a vast, mechanized, just-in-time, highly complex electrified ecology.

2.Beyond the common reliance on critical infrastructures, especially in the cities of the world, any public or private entity that uses or depends on those who use mainframe computers, distributed systems, desktops, date-sensitive embedded systems, and electronic data interchanges has Y2K vulnerabilities that need to be inventoried and assessed. The time required for the entire process of remediation is more critical than the given complexity of any specific system.

3.Every global survey -- Gartner Group, UN, World Bank, CIA, etc -- indicates that large numbers of major corporations and government agencies in every nation are seriously behind in either starting or acting on Y2K. This is reportedly true, not only in developing nations, but in the industrialized nations of Europe, Asia, and Latin America as well. The problem gets worse as one surveys small and medium-sized entities in every country, including the U.S. These are all important to the electric ecology in their roles as employers, taxpayers, suppliers, and customers -- to say nothing of the market value of equities, the redemption of bonds, or the collectability of loans.

4.Even in the countries furthest along -- the U.S., Canada, Australia, the UK, -- most major enterprises started so late that they were forced to limit their efforts to those systems deemed to be critical to business survival or to essential delivery of government services and benefits. Many of these "mission critical" projects have missed one interim progress milestone after another. Even larger numbers of date sensitive systems deemed only "important" or "supportive" have been left untouched for lack of resources with unforeseeable Y2K results. (The death of a thousand cuts?)

5.If historic software project experience is relevant to large Y2K system efforts, then even the organizations that got started in the last thirty-six months are likely to have some of their efforts fail totally before 2000, or run into the final deadline uncompleted, or require efforts to fix which go well beyond the first few days of 2000. Those organizations with large systems that only got started in the last twelve months or have yet to finish their assessments have put their computerized institutional memory, financial, administrative management, and factory operations at serious risk. Given the widespread laxness and the unknowable interdependent vulnerabilities, it is no wonder that contingency planning is becoming pervasive and essential for corporations, governments, national guards, and local emergency management directors.

6.Any phenomena in a large class of events typically sorts out into a bell-shaped curve. We should expect Y2K outcomes to do the same. The results among and within countries, corporations within given industries, jurisdictions at comparable levels of government, etc. can be expected to include some major successes, some major failures, and a large spectrum of results in between. How the failures will impact the successes and the citizenry in general is unknowable.

7.In the U.S., as elsewhere, the availability of electricity is the linchpin issue. If it stays up, however disruptive other failures may be, the problems will be manageable over time, however painful. Who could not be encouraged by the increasing number of positive reports from those in the electricity and telecommunications industries? And these not only from their public information officers, but increasingly from programmers and systems engineers actually doing the remediation and testing.

Nevertheless, no matter how much progress individually being reported from these industries as well as banking and securities, no matter now successful their industry-wide systems' testing simulations are, there is no way to do real time, end-to-end testing. When I read both industry advocates and independent analysts knowledgeable about power generation, transmission, and distribution with varied forecasts of zero to seven days of a few localized outages, I am encouraged. On the other hand, if mine is to be one of those localities with a seven-day outage or worse, my encouragement diminishes. So far, the industry is unable or unwilling to give us the specifics -- locale by locale.

8.I keep being told that there are many more successfully complete Y2K efforts than are being publicly reported for a variety of reasons. All to the good. I am also being told by many in positions to know that many Y2K certified compliant products and systems (that are essential to an organization's effectiveness) aren't; that CEOs and CIOs are not being told how far behind schedule some Y2K projects really are; and that there are CEOs who do know they are behind and are not acknowledging it publicly. So when we read a summary of the Fortune 500 SEC self-reports at last year's end, what should we do with the 96 companies that either provided no date for finishing their Y2K remediation or use such meaningless legalese as "in a timely manner," or the dozens of others whose completion milestones have already slipped?

-- a (a@a.a), April 14, 1999.

I would humbly suggest the concept being alluded to in item 1 is "interdependence"... and it isn't a matter of degree. Like pregnancy, or death, you either is o' you ain't.

Item 6 is pretty weak.
Regarding item 7 - the more "positive reports" that are independently verified, the better! If anyone wants to chide me/us for not being hugely reassured by press releases, fine. The potential stakes are too high. (Ditto the reverse. A lone PR report is insufficent cause for alarm, here.)
To use the idea North mentioned lately, about branches of the US military reviewing each other's work... How about an exchange of Y2K auditors between companies - with big rewards/penalties to encourage thoroughness?
Is it all that delusional to want to hear, for ex., that ConEd has been reviewed and found to be ready? By someone not in their employ, or in the pay of a trade industry association?
...260 days before the date rollover?

-- Grrr (grrr@grrr.net), April 15, 1999.

I emailed this thread (the above responses) to Victor.

You can also email him with your response directly from the article.

~C~

-- Critt Jarvis (middleground@critt.com), April 15, 1999.