OK. Here's something I've been thinking about lately - a bit of logic on the arrogance of thinking we can can predicting Y2K disruptions down to a 3-day accuracy level.

Its a bit long, but stick with me.

------

Virtually all of the Y2K experts/senators/czar's/notarieties agree on one point - one wisdom of truth shared and accepted by anyone close to the issue.

* No one REALLY knows what's going to happen *

Everyone acknowledges it is so because we don't understand the true complexities of the global supply chain - finance, power, phone, gas, food, transportation, governments. Nor the way that nature or the human element stretches and changes this chain through unpredictable events such as earthquakes or wars.

So, if we don't understand the supply chain interdependencies, and we all admit it, then how is it that anyone can say that we've remediated and tested all our systems enough to mitigate the risks down to a 3 day storm? What yardstick is used to know how well we are achieving to this goal if we can't even define the ruler?

Let's take basic supply chain risk management. Look at Ford or GM for example - their supply chain for all their parts like shocks, spark plugs, tires is just huge - how is it that they can derive any meaningful analysis of such a large number of suppliers, when the most common response from them is to say as little as possible and in the best possible light.

Why?

Well, from their suppliers' point of view, here is their best customer asking about their Y2K program, and they know that future or even current business is on the line. They will communicate their true progress and comprehensiveness of their Y2K projects as positively as they can without actually lying (let's assume everyone's honest).

Point is, how accurate can all that 'positive' reporting be to Ford? They may be able to make some sweeping generalizations, like 4% of their most critical suppliers didn't respond, and 32% of the respondents have missed a target date, and so on. Even onsite audits will only yield incrementally more real solid data - and that's taking Y2K supply chain management to the max level. Companies simply have to use best guess and blind faith and budget constraints and business relationships to manage the information gap, and that's just not accurate for determining the true business risk.

Anyway, let's say for argument that they get really meaningful information that accurately shows them the status of their suppliers. What about their supplier's suppliers - it's just not possible to get that accurate of data and be able to model what the true risk is to your business, even if all the suppliers down the line cooperated fully.

Go one more level deeper than that - and it becomes absurdly complex - the next level is insanely complex - and I run out of terms for beyond that.

Now, when these companies/utilities/governments report their progress that we see in the papers, realize that they really haven't a clue as to how exposed they are to their own supply chain disruption. And even then, the report we hear has been sanitized and toned down and happy in nature. Companies saying that they've done their best on Y2K and are now 100% 'ready' or 99% 'compliant' is just not accurate. It just can't be.

And THAT's whey the caveat is always "but we may be impacted in an unknown way by outside parties" or something like that.

Exactly.

No one company can say they are compliant, because they are all inextricably and completely dependent upon their suppliers - be it a chemical or water or power. No business can operate in a vaccuum - if their suppliers are affected - they are affected and neither can really predict ALL their supply chain risk.

So, to recap, there's just no bloody way that anyone can really know how the expected 'local disruptions' of an admittedly unknown number in admittedly unknown locations can all tally up to no more than an ice storm of 3 days....Don't panic, they say, there will be some local disruptions but we are increasingly confident that the national infrastructure will hold....cautiously optimistic....increasingly confident.... Crap. No one knows, and it scares the hell of those that realize this. It does to me.

When someone like Koskinen, Yourdon, Clinton, Yardeni, de Jager, CIA, International Monitoring, or whoever tells you that they predict this and they predict that - for the most part everyone is bowling in the dark because none of these people, nor their advisors, nor the best brains in the world can possibly predict Y2K down to a few days or weeks of accuracy.

THINK about it. THEY don't KNOW. Neither do you, nor I.

Just how are these people so clever that they can take all the unknowns with such a complex and demonstratably destructive phenomenon and come out with a prediction that will be maximum of a few weeks.

Think about the other influences that may crop up during a 3-day storm of computer errors, such as that most companies report progress only on 'critical systems' - the rest were triaged, or that the global financial situation is unsteady already, or that military tensions are high with major world powers, or the documented increase in solar activity, the increasing Y2K disruptions now, complacency of the majority of our population, the infamous 'Navy' report, etc.

All a rich tapestry, but we are not smart enough yet to understand it, let alone weave it to our liking.

-- Just some guy in Canada (pleaseponder@yourleisure.com), August 28, 1999

Answers

A storm that lasts 3 day's in one area in the lower 48 is almost unheard of. 3 day's would be pretty bad!

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Consider 7 days for each of 3 days and you can count on a minimum of 21 day aftermath. Three day figure is so inaccurate it borders the ridiculous.

-- Mary Doe (m.doe@usa.net), August 28, 1999.

Just some guy in Canada,

Very well said.

Just some girl in Iowa

-- Just some girl in Iowa (Fedup@home.calm?), August 28, 1999.