Much of my concern about Y2K has always been the discrepancy between project optimism and schedule realities (cf Yourdon's "Deja Vu").

Because the top of this particular PR chain (e.g., government and media) is generally unfamiliar with IT, you don't have to postulate conspiracy to assume that they have largely taken project optimism about Y2K at face value. Nine months ago, most organizations were behind. Now, they have caught up with a super-human burst of activity. Wonderful! The world is Y2K-OK. Easy as pie.

My jaundiced view as an IT professional is that false optimism in the late stages of a project amounts to lying. ASSUMING (which I can't know) that the PR gurus are NOT in receipt of the "real dope", the onus for lying rests on the millions of people down the chain who are punting the truth. We all have our reasons, I know. Or is it lying? Is this the exception that proves the rule (as the pollies have always argued, everyone is ready because "Y2K is different?")

Regrettably, this late stage "readiness" in the face of missed deadlines, increased budgets et al exactly tracks "deja vu" experiences. Whatever the case, we will shortly discover, for sure, whether ....

.... most everyone really is 90 to 99% ready and/or

.... if they're not, how badly does it matter?

If it doesn't matter, it will be because either Y2K bugs turned out to be trivial for bringing systems to their knees OR because technical staff (I'm thinking enterprise systems) are super-competent at FOF OR because the world can endure an info slowdown for weeks or months while many thing are handled manually and shifts are made to organizations that have done their homework. Any of these results will amaze me but I'm prepared to be amazed. Wishing and hoping to be amazed.

Here is a little conundrum that continues to trouble me.

It was generally acknowledged until a few months ago that the U.S. and a few other countries were far out in front of the rest of the world, even large portions of the advanced world. Say, a year or more ahead. That's a guess, natch. Could be less, could be more. As George has sagely pointed out, every country has its own Y2K dynamic and we are woefully ignorant, in most cases, of what that means and what its global impact will be.

Anyway, oversimplifying drastically, we have to assume that if a given country is 12 months behind us, that means that they must make the same RELATIVE effort to "catch up" and that the impacts on their infrastructure would be RELATIVELY the same as it would have been on ours should they fail to catch up. Absent the country by country analysis, this is the best we can do with the current generalizations. Otherwise, the statement, "a year behind," has no meaning.

And, with respect to relative, as someone who has traveled much of the world, the dependence of our global neighbors (with surprisingly rare third-world exceptions and they have their own special Y2K exposures) on utilities, water, sewage, modern banking, transportation services and manufacturing supply chains is intensely like our own. As is our dependence on these ourselves and our dependence on our global neighbors for a successful economy.

So, let's say, just for debating sake, that the U.S. arrives at 1/1/2000 90% ready. Remember, this is for argument's sake and for being "amazed". We'll call that "compliant", right?

Now, if Germany and France are one year behind, they will experience the same relative failures we would have if we had stopped working on Y2K 1/1/1999, right? That is, the kind of failures which Koskinen, Bennett and the Senate had projected (serious grid failure, etc)?

Let's introduce a caveat there and assume that they have benefited from lessons learned by US during 1997-1999 as we continued remediating (though that is only an assumption). So, we'll assume that they will enter 1/1/2000 six months behind, not a year behind, much as we would have on 7/1/99.

Now, suppose Russia, China, Brazil, Italy and Saudi Arabia are two years behind? But we'll cut that in half and judge that they will face the same problems we would have if we were NOW a year behind (adjusting for the differences in their infrastructures, cultures, etc, of course).

Now, suppose there are 40 or 50 countries (India among them?) who have largely left Y2K as a complete FOF situation or who have touched a variety of systems but remediated few of them. Will they face the relative problems we would have faced if "our" U.S. 2000 impacts had come in 1996?

If not, why not? It could only be for the reasons I have already raised above (Y2K is trivial, etc, though they will not have access to the info expertise we do for FOF) or that they have stupendously leveraged our Y2K expertise for themselves. This latter is highly improbable though, since most communications have been perfunctory and neither governments nor corporations share much technical dope with each other (granting some major possible exceptions for international banking).

Or, we could postulate that multinationals are 90% ready, which will mitigate worldwide effects greatly. Even if this is true, which I doubt, many countries rely much MORE heavily than we do on government systems for maintenance of all key information infrastructure (even some advanced countries like France, for instance). Iron triangle effects, as multinationals publicly admit, will affect their own operations critically.

Net net, unless TPTB have been given confidential evidence of sure massive breakdown (a distinct possibility but unknowable), they are crossing their fingers on the same "I'm ready" optimism that many of us in IT cut our teeth on for years. Heck, we on this forum are STILL crossing our fingers on it.

So, martial law won't be declared in 1999 and the market will mainly hold its own (slide, no crash) unless the smart money makes its move (and much of the smart money may ALSO be hamstrung by damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't scenarios, leading to crossed fingers). You can, uh, bank on that.

The question for us who are keeping score is, "did it ever matter that dozens upon dozens of countries were behind the U.S.?"

Was it once true but no longer so? How did that miracle come to pass? With less experience than the U.S., how did they accelerate their "relative" progress SO greatly?

It is true but it doesn't matter because Y2K won't "affect them" or, through them, us?

This is a debating thread, boys and girls, not a question thread! If you can help Big Dog sleep better at night, I'll thank you. But you've got to be persuasive.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 27, 1999

Answers

BTW, Mrs. Big Dog and I are ferrying one of the littler dogs to college this weekend, so I may miss out on the fun and games here, lest I can break my way into the college library and commandeer a terminal.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 27, 1999.

Reports indicate that many countries won't even bother to report their progress on Y2K issues. If this is grounds for optimism, I'd like to know why.

Sorry, BigDog, the spin is on, and those of us who have been following it can see it. The public who watches Sally and Jerry can't.

Sermons, attacks on ads mentioning Y2K, PR releases that indicate that we'll finish in December, and all but five other countries will, too. C'mon.

We're in the part of the game where the plan is to hold everything together until rollover and hope it isn't too bad. If it is too bad, the power figures have their butts covered and their bunkers. I think it is as simple as that.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 27, 1999.

Hey BD,

Hope you don't mind if I print this out and show it around.

Only one thing...

ASSUMING (which I can't know) that the PR gurus are NOT in receipt of the "real dope",

You need to understand PR. The truth isn't necessarily necessary. Actually, Diane posted a link and some copy to the Rendon Group (who just happens to be doing a whole lot of work for some, uh, powerful entities these days) and they spell out the criteria and objectives of PR very well on their web page.

The truth is always spun into the most favorable light in order for the client to obtain the desired objective. That IS THE name of the game.

Oh, along other lines, has there been a "personal contingency plan" chat?

Mike

============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

Mike -- Print away. Having done a short tech white paper for Hill & Knowlton in 1997, I have a modest hands-on understanding of PR. I was struck by the evident sincerity they evinced in their conviction that spinning things WELL for the client WAS honesty (and, of course, it was "professional"). Heck, given the ethical foundations we're slipping on these days, that was right on, relatively speaking. The meaning of "is" depends on what the client needs it to be.

The White House (the client) decided that Joe Public (the market) needed to have Y2K spun away from anything that would cause decided action and Koskinen is, I'm fairly certain, operating with the clearest possible conscience that he is "helping the client".

Chats will resume after Labor Day. Perhaps I should start a fresh thread inviting folks again.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 27, 1999.

German intelligence agency says millennium bug threatens "complete breakdown" BBC Monitoring European - Political

Text of report by the German news magazine `Der Spiegel' on 9th August

The millennium bug has become globalized through the international vagabond nature of hardware and software. A study by the Federal German Intelligence Service (BND) from this spring assesses the worldwide efforts to thwart the data loss worst case scenario as follows: "function failures up to complete breakdown can be expected almost everywhere". Of the estimated 80bn computer chips worldwide, 800m have not been tested. Ninety-three per cent of all personal computers made before 1997 or which have older chips in them are considered at risk.

Fear reigns, according to the BND dossier, in airport control towers. Thus the international civil air transport organization ICAO is encouraging a greater interval between takeoffs and landings.

Attempts are being made to spare the economy from a black January. William McDonough, head of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, believes that the calendar jump "will be a matter of survival for businesses and whole markets". The London and New York stock exchanges are considered exemplary in their preparation; the Paris and Singapore exchanges have thus far declined to release specific information. In Bangkok, whoever does not make their year 2000 activities public is expelled. The British government is considering closing the banks for five days.

Even the computers of the western military forces do not yet seem to be ready for the crisis. German intelligence service experts relate that because of a software problem, the F-16 fighter aircraft of the Netherlands would not be able to be refueled in flight in an emergency. Nine out of 10 computers of the British Navy were considered susceptible. In a test, the Rapier antiaircraft missile system reportedly failed completely.

According to the BND, China is among the worst prepared nations. The wild mix of hardware and illegally copied software make preparations much more difficult. The computers of the 40 domestic airlines with their 17,000 terminals reportedly "are seriously susceptible to Y2K". Y2K is the American shorthand for the change in millennium. The national leadership reportedly ordered the heads of all the airlines to be in the air on New Years Eve.

In Europe, Russia is considered a problem child. The BND authors have determined that 60 per cent of all official networks require new software. Up to now, the World Bank has given an anti-crash credit of 100,000 dollars; estimates put the amount needed at up to 3bn dollars.

An unintentional launch of intercontinental missiles is considered "unlikely". Nevertheless, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin have arranged for a joint early warning centre in Colorado Springs with a direct line to the Kremlin.

In the United States the millennium problem is matter for decision by the president. The armed forces have been reassured, according to the BND, by the exercise in the summer of 1998 in New Mexico that simulated 1st January 2000. In that exercise an F-4 bomber was controlled by a computer that had been adjusted, and everything went according to plan. The US issuing bank is already printing banknotes worth 50bn dollars in order to satisfy the conceivable run on cash because people do not trust their plastic cards.

Canada seems to the BND to set the example. Leave reportedly would be cancelled for the police and the army, in some cases until the middle of March; military forces would be on alert; and members of the government would come together in a "war room" on New Years Eve.

(Copyright 1999)

_____via IntellX_____

Publication Date: August 26, 1999 Powered by NewsReal's IndustryWatch

...back to top

-- brother rat (rldabney@usa.net), August 27, 1999.

You again, you little twerp? Aren't you the same twaddle-cop that keeps asking questions and then arrogantly stating that NOONE can question you? What a twonk!

Maybe someone should start a thread titled "the simplicity of Bigdog: Why his granite-blockhead can't unget it"

I've read some of your past threads. And unfortunatly I've seen your logic in action (sheesh!). What makes you think that anyone will waste time with you? You have proven over and over again that you do NOT want factual evidence. If it is optimistic it is "spin". If it is pessimistic it goes on "your side" of the argument.

Anyone that "debates" with you (and I use the term loosely) is wasting their time. You use the same "beating your wife again, huh?" tactics that you accuse others of using.

What a twik.

-- Why would (anyoneevenbother@debating.you?), August 27, 1999.

Well "why would" - in your haste to condemn and criticize him personally, I notice you had nothing substantive to say....

So why did you bother?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 27, 1999.

Why Would --- you haven't been reading me too carefully, since I have stated explicitly and more than once on this forum over the past few months that I am decidedly more optimistic about conditions in U.S. than I was at the beginning of the year and especially about the grid (still nervous, but optimistic). Also about telecom -- in U.S. Some of my doomer friends think I've "gone over to the dark side" on those matters. I still expect hard downs in U.S. but no catastrophe, at least around rollover. Part of my change is due to cogent posts made by pollies. Horrors!

But I remain very pessimistic about global conditions and their effect on U.S. That is true. I still expect a global depression. That is true. And I do expect unexpected and potentially dangerous breakdowns to the global supply chain. That is true.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 27, 1999.

Dog Gone wrote, "Reports indicate that many countries won't even bother to report their progress on Y2K issues. If this is grounds for optimism, I'd like to know why". Foreign countries are not obligated to tell us squat. No data is just that, as it implies, nothing, void of information, neither optimistic nor pessimistic. I don't conclude anything from the progress of foreign countries no matter how hard George tries to get me to speak on the subject. It seems you doomers have concluded that this lack of information implies they are doomed. It doesn't. And don't translate that to mean I'm saying that it implies they are fine. Stop reading things that aren't there, just like your accusations of spin.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 27, 1999.

BigDog commented:

"My jaundiced view as an IT professional is that false optimism in the late stages of a project amounts to lying. ASSUMING (which I can't know) that the PR gurus are NOT in receipt of the "real dope", the onus for lying rests on the millions of people down the chain who are punting the truth. We all have our reasons, I know. Or is it lying? "

Well BigDog, if those in LEADERSHIP (IT) roles really wanted to know the truth from their subordinates, I don't believe there would be a problem in determining it. In addition, if the CEO's of these companies really wanted to know the TRUTH about their IT"s remediation status I don't believe there would be a problem in determining it.

When folks don't want to HEAR the TRUTH is when the problems arise!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

Italics Off

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

Maria -- I agree with you that we can't conclude lack of progress from lack of data but I find it troubling that the whole world, so to speak, seems to have "caught up" without any substantive evidence to that effect. You know yourself from experience that Y2K remediation, while trivial logically, is costly in terms of budget and staff. To some degree, it can't be "rushed".

I actually omitted, on further reflection, the only argument that would logically explain the "catch-up", namely, that the world wasn't as far behind as we Americans thought they were. That seems EXTRAORDINARILY improbable to me, I must say.

While I have never known whether to credit the oft-quoted datum that 75% of all source code is extra-U.S. (I would be more interested in knowing how much of it is extra-U.S. and extra-multinationals), even if that number were 50% (intuitively reasonable to me at least), the global situation has received surprisingly little analysis, even in this forum.

I fear the reason is that the lack of data overlaps a lack of attention until very recently (ie., 1999). Otherwise, one would have thought that the same flow of "data" that has characterized things here in the U.S. would have obtained globablly.

All that said, LOGICALLY speaking, you are correct. We cannot conclude lack of progress from lack of data.

That doesn't make me sleep more easily.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 27, 1999.

Foreign countries are not obligated to tell us squat. No data is just that, as it implies, nothing, void of information, neither optimistic nor pessimistic.

Sorry, Maria, I don't agree.

Common sense tells me that anyone would brag about Y2K success. It also tells me that awareness of the issue (while being behind schedule) might even cause me to stretch the truth and hope for the best.

To be silent on it is evidence that you don't even have a clue.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 27, 1999.

Wow BigDog that's two agreements in the same week (the "praise revelation" on the previous thread). I too agree that the lack of info doesn't increase our comfort level. But... (you knew it was coming) I feel you made another mistake in your statements. If we don't know the progress how do you know when they started, their funding levels, and their efforts (a lack of attention until very recently (ie., 1999))? Simple fact, they don't need to advertise any of the plans to the media. I just refuse to believe that us Americans are so much more smarter than them. If we figured out this Y2K thing, then I'd also believe that they ran into similar problems with their systems. But that's just my opinion.

Dog Gone, Common sense tells me that anyone would brag about Y2K success. Well corporations and governments do not have human characteristics including common sense. (They don't feel sad, or mad, or joy or anything). With bragging comes the lawyers who can use what you say against you in a court of law. The less you say the better off (legally). Of course, that contradicts how your customers will react. Each corporation weighs and balances these two opposing views and acts according to their own situations.

Also please explain why I have no clue. I've always stated that I have no info on foreign progress and we can conclude I have no clue on foreign progress. Are you extrapolating that to any subject matter? Just curious.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 27, 1999.

"Simple fact, they don't need to advertise any of the plans to the media." Maria, to the extent that foreign countries are interested in keeping or obtaining investment capital, you are entirely wrong on this point. The flight-to-quality out of the emerging markets has already begun.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

MARIA! I was KIDDING about the praise! Totally! Like, HUMOR, you know!

Oh, man ......

Now, you're making assumptions about potential progress based on lack of data and/or "common sense" rejoinders to Dog Gone. I don't agree. Are others as smart as Americans? No doubt, maybe smarter. While we can't logically conclude lack of progress (and there I do agree with you, yes), I still see no evidence, explicit or inferential, to support progress.

The declared fact also remains that all sorts of world surveys (and not all done by Americans) showed most of the world somewhat to hugely behind the U.S. until, say, two months ago. Then, a "miracle" began to happen. I'm still wondering about that "miracle" ....

Gotta run to "college", back this weekend maybe.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 27, 1999.

Big Dog,

Over the last two weeks my intuition tells me that it will be WORSE here.

Instead of promoting from within, and valuing SENIORITY (Quaint word?), we RE-ENGINEERED! We didn't need those stinkin' Old Timers...you know, the ones with the HUGE accrued pension liabilities and "OBSOLETE" ANALOG skills as well as institutional memory.

Perhaps we 'Reengineered' ourselves OUT OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE. I'm putting the DIEBACK guesstimate at 10 million here.

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in January.com), August 27, 1999.

Random thoughts while reading this thread . . .

On Global Interdependencies:

I have seen neither evidence nor satisfactory argument to explain the miracle we are now to believe has occurred. In fact, Big Dogs comment, Or, we could postulate that multinationals are 90% ready, which will mitigate worldwide effects greatly, is the first flag of hope Ive seen waving from the global interdependency section of the field.

On PR:

Having always been interested in the dynamics of belief-construction, I am utterly taken aback to witness the extent of the success of the PR campaign to which Big Dog alludes. The science has come far.

Last weekend I went to my family reunion. Piled 30 copies of my letter Re: Y2KMy Conclusions after a Year of Research and Review and 30 copies of Suggested Food Supplies For A Family Of Four For Three Months on the table next to the family photo albums. Left with about 28 copies of each, and nobody broached the subject with me the whole time. When I mentioned Y2K to one cousin, she said she guessed shed just wait and see what happens, clearly not wanting to pursue the subject. I asked her to please store some food and water. She said, oh yeah, she would. Nobody brings up the subject anywhere. Its worse than dead; its a friggin taboo. I got family members email addresses though. They havent heard the last of me yet. Probably send em this thread.

On Sending the Kids to College:

Man, thats gotta be a tough one. Gold stars for your courage and faith, all you parents out there going through it. Hope the autumn is simply glorious for all kids everywhere. A year ago, I was drifting off to sleep when an ad came on TV soliciting participants in the international high school exchange program. Woke me right up, and made my blood run cold. College, home for T-day and the holidays . . . thats good. Best wishes to kids and parents alike.

On Electric Power:

Worked for a power company for a year in the warroom where the trading was done. Highly educational position. After I read Big Dogs comments, I am decidedly more optimistic about conditions in U.S. than I was at the beginning of the year and especially about the grid (still nervous, but optimistic). I started thinking about all the years of experience the company lost when it restructured. The new bunch that came in were the epitome of those Ray described, those who wanted profit, not truth. Not everyone who left was looking for a position inside the industry. Men who had put decades into the business, who had worked the generating side, the transmission side of it, were heading out for the worlds of golf and deep sea fishing. K Stevens nailed it exactly. Dont know about the dieoff count, but reengineering and deregulation do play their roles in the drama, indeed.

I was feeling decidedly more optimistic about the grid for awhile, too. But two of the nukes on the "not ready list are ten miles of crow flight from my home. They expect to be ready by Septembers end, according to NERC. But two weeks after their report to NERC, they told the Pittsburgh Press, Were ready. Honest. Another miracle? So Ive been pondering the STAKES of potential grid failure again. And I find myself wondering anew about how many local and regional failures it might take before it all comes tumbling down? I wonder about what happens if one or two of the local or regional failures shuts down a few nuke plants here and there. What happens if one of those plants has the bad luck to have one of the 5% of the emergency diesel generators that DOESNT work? What if its the one just over the hill, there? I think about Lords Navy report, and about all the thousands of words thrown at it, and I do the kind of mental figuring that Big Dog did with countries in the opener to this thread. I make up reasons to explain why the worst failures will somehow be contained, reasons to believe that somehow enough HAS been done to keep it standing, even if it does stagger some.

Im not sleeping too well these nights, either. The questions are too many, and the answers way too few. Still, I appreciate the company thats sharing the load.

-- Faith Weaver (suzsolutions@yahoo.com), August 27, 1999.

I meant NRC, not NERC. NOT sleeping too well these days!

-- Faith (suzsoltuions@yahoo.com), August 27, 1999.

Maria:

You and I totally disagree on one point. They do have to tell us. The whole system is based on a bare minimum of trust. That goes and all hell breaks loose. I have worked with CEO's at a number of orginizations. They are decent people. They don't want to destroy the hoi-poi [sp] like us. But, if they are withholding critical information [and I don't know that they are], they will be the worse for it. Humongous Hound; just keep asking the same question! Over and over, until you get an answer.

Best wishes,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Back from college ..... btw, the younger dog will be home over rollover and is prepared to exit on a moment's notice with enough extra gas to make it home the back way, if need be.

Thanks for nothing, Faith! To put it simply, I take my utility cues primarily from Rick Cowles, whom I trust "enough". He is hardly optimistic but he does seem to envision most of the grid in U.S. making it through. So far as I know.

Brooks made an excellent point that is spot-on. All countries, at least 1st and 2nd world, have to talk about any piece of Y2K progress (if not spin it upwards) to keep the money boys happy. Silence is not an option, unless there is absolutely nothing to say.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 29, 1999.

great. russ thinks cowles is to be trusted "enough". kinda like viewing paul milne as a "savior", huh russ?

-- extremist tracker (U@the.tracker), August 30, 1999.

Extremist -- In real life, as you know, of course, we all trust a variety of sources to varying degrees and weigh their reliability when we make our personal judgments. I make no apology for "trusting" Rick Cowles -- wish I knew as much about utilities as he does. My personal contacts with him have only strengthened my confidence in his work.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 30, 1999.