This email is one of Jan's responses to questions danced around during the teleconference. Notes posted at this thread: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0012TE

From: JaNickrson@AOL.COM
Re: Nat'l Y2K Civic Preparedness TeleConference - Ready without qualification...
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 5:56 AM

My question posed to the Civic Preparedness Teleconference, Thursday, July 1:

How do we reconcile the statement in the Community Conversations materials which states that the Federal Government will be ready for Y2K with the information in Representative Horn's most recent report which lists unknown or late December completion dates for a number of federal programs...?

Comments on the call by Jan (clarifying the original question and incorporating remarks made on the call):

We've heard today that Horn's report may rely on outdated information. And we've also heard that information may always be outdated but that must not stop critical information from being released to those who need it for adequate planning.

In raising the question above, my focus was not on Horn, or OMB, or any specific source of information.

The intention behind my question was to begin a dialogue on the consequences of saying "we're ready" without qualification.

I believe Leigh agreed we could set something up, on our next call, or perhaps a call specific to this topic. The purpose of this email is to clarify my concern, and inquire as to whether others share this concern, and can help codify the issue in meaningful terms that will bring us all to a higher level of shared understanding.

We're all concerned that state and local leaders are behind in their Y2K preparedness.

I'm wondering:

Does the federal government (or any organization, for that matter) saying "We're ready, it's others that aren't" set up a model that others mimic, "We're ready, it's the other guy who's not"?

Does the uninformed public connote "ready" as "capable of sustaining services under any circumstance?"

Can any organization dependent on infrastructure beyond their control be "ready" in that context?

What should the public be learning about readiness? And who should be making sure they're learning that?

Might any national assurances that "we're ready" be tranquilizing the public into believing "nothing can go wrong, there's nothing to prepare for", and worse, "All Y2K concerns are hype stirred up by self-serving capitalists."

Everyone, including the Federal government, is dependent on infrastructure beyond their control.

Everyone, each of us, is dependent upon supply chains beyond our control.

Every system is interdependent with other systems; and systems testing reveals daily some unexpected event which was not predicted.

Our teleconference and civic prep comments echo our shared concern that the American public is not taking seriously enough, nor preparing sufficiently for, potential Y2K disruptions.

The issue I'm raising is not about any one report or source being timely or not. It's more about a concern that national leadership saying "we're ready" without exception unduly tranquilizes the very people that need to be informed and preparing.

Following up on my suggestion to the Civic Preparedness teleconference yesterday, I think it would be very healthy to have that a teleconference with concerned community activists and President's Council people, and possibly Horn's people, addressing the issues of:

1) "what's the intention in saying "we're ready" without exception?"

2) "what's meant, and what's heard, by saying "we're 'ready?'"

3) What are the consequences of unqualified assertions, "we are ready" or "we will be ready".

4) In what ways might we express the need for being "Ready AND prepared" that would instill appropriate urgency in every organization, community and household in the country?

Do others on this call/listserve share these concerns?

I am trying to codify the provocative question that might break through a new level of shared understanding. If you would like to contribute to formulating a question that will move all of us to a new level of understanding and action please email her at:

JaNickrson@aol.com

or express yourself on civicprep@4Hlists.org.

If you would like this topic on the next agenda, or to participate in a separate call on this topic, please let Dacia or Jan know, by emailing

RevDacia@uuy2k.com

or

JaNickrson@aol.com

.

Thanks

Jan Nickerson
Y2K Connections - building community not crises - the only Y2K game in town
http://www.Y2KConnections.com

-- Critt Jarvis (middleground@critt.com), July 04, 1999

Answers

Yep. Thanks Critt.

Personal assessment.... "we're NOT ready..." locally, nationally or internationally. Just saying it's "so" doesn't make it so.

Saying "we'll be ready" doesn't mean they will, or won't. Risk assessments.

Simple.

Being prepared, for more than you expect, is the ONLY thing that makes sense.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 04, 1999.

Speaking originally to the fact that July 1 had no blockbuster failure

Certainly not,in fact on the surface it is cause for happy faces.Does it matter that systems were found that were thought to be compliant were in fact not?If you are a Polly probably not;because you can legitimately argue that they were quickly fixed,no harm no foul. If you did a little more research you would know that Capers Jones in one of his books "Patterns Of Software Systems Failure and Success" shows statistically the % of software projects by SIZE of project---that are likely to be finished early,on-time,late or never.Yes,NEVER;some 23.82% of average projects are never completed.Y2k may be technologically trivial and intellectually boring to the big brains but it is certainly a larger than average project. Here is the spectrum: Size of project Average Early 5.53% On-time 56.94 Delayed 13.71 Cancelled 23.82 Total 100.00%

I'm assuming that no y2k project has been cancelled or downsized(does decreasing the number of critical systems constitute downsizing?),I may be wrong on that.

The average software project according to Capers Jones has a 13.7% chance of being late.Is that meaningful?After all if a software project is only a day or two late; the time of a "winter Storm"it probably doesn't matter.More info: Average Project Minimum Duration in months 14.2 Actual Average Duration in months 27.1 Estimated Duration in months 19.36

Think about about what this means in the real world.The average project takes 27 months to complete.The average project is estimated to take "only" 19.36 months.The average project "IS 7.65 MONTHS Late".The larger than average projects have much longer late times.Can you weather a 7.65 month storm?

-- Desertj98 (jturner@ptway.com), July 04, 1999.

Compliance information on 43 high-impact federal programs, including expected completion dates...

http://freedom.house.gov/y2k/grades/highimpact9906.pdf

PDF format.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 04, 1999.