Fascinating Insight on the Polly braingreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
I do believe the following offers a very interesting perspective.I posed some questions at the csy2k newsgroup folowing an audio review of Cap Gemini's latest survey results. The results were rather alarming to me even taken at face value (and I believe that the vast majority of companies are grossly overstating their readiness.)
Although I 'lurk' here and post there, this may be of interest to this group as well.
I did not think that any 'Polly' would give straight answers to the questions.
One has (so far).
Perhaps these are not the greatest questions, but I think they get close enough to the heart of the matter.
For a real Polly, it does not matter that the work has not been done and it does not matter if it *never* gets done. There is only one valid and reliable indicator of likely future failures - and that is: current failures (widely reported on in the popular media).
(Please note that in every instance only "the *most* critical systems of America's largest corporations" are under consideration.) ______ ______
Subject: Re: Seriously - I need help from an intelligent Polly From: A Polly Date: Thu, 23 September 1999 07:33 AM EDT Message-id: <37EA91B3.5CA4@qqq.gol.com>
Genroberts wrote: > > The Cap Gemini 100 day survey is discussed in the "Patrick D'Acre" section of Yardeni's 100-day conference: http://www.y2kactionday.com/ >
> Please help me understand the implications of Howard Rubin's discussion of the poll results. I will quote from that audio presentation as accurately as possible and then ask simple and genuine questions. >
> Rubin: "56% of America's largest corporations hold out that their critical (stammer) most critical, systems will be 100% tested and compliant by the end of this year." >
> Questions: > > Is it realistic to believe that less than 56% are at that stage now?
Answer: Yes. No organization of any size is 100% tested and compliant, nor will they ever be. Most, however, are ready (i.e. Ready to do business.)
> > Should I be concerned with the seemingly deliberate use of the term "most critical" vs. "critical"?
Answer: No.
> > If 56% believe they will be 'done', is it likely that a smaller percentage will actually meet their goal and be done?
Answer: Depends on what 'done' means? Every spreadsheet?
> > Rubin: "94% said at least 76% of these systems (my note: presumably the "most critical") will be compliant and tested by year end. >
> Questions:
> > It seems that almost everyone will be three-quarters or more 'done' with their most critical systems. Is this "good"?
Answer: Sounds good to me.
> > Is it reasonable to believe that the 6% of *America's largest corporations* who *admit* that they don't even have a *plan* to be at least 76% 'done' with their *most critical systems* will be in serious trouble?
Answer: No.
> > Rubin: "Slightly less than half do not expect completion." >
> Questions: >
> Am I understanding this right; about half of America's largest corporations do not even *plan* to be done with their *most* critical systems by the end of the year? (It just seems too hard to believe.)
Answer: It's very hard for me to believe. I think we're having semantic problems with "completed," "done," 100%, and the ever-popular compliant-vs-ready.
> > Rubin: "The good news is that the vast majority don't see their level of compliance as posing any major business risk. Only about one in ten said that non-compliance may impose a significant business risk. 6% are simply not sure what is going to happen." >
> Questions:
> > Should I consider it "good" that *only* about 10% of America's largest corporations believe that they are facing a major business risk?
Answer: Yes.
> > If one-tenth of America's biggest corporations feel at risk, is the economy at risk? Am I at risk to suffer from this thing?
Answer: Probably not. Even less probable.
> > Since 6% say "they don't know", is it fair to say that 16% of America's largest corporations (about 1 in 6) are not "confident"? And if that is so, should I feel "confident"?
Answer: I don't understand the 6% and the 16%. At any rate, "they don't know" is vague. We might be back at the old "100%" problem.
> > Rubin: "9 out of 10 (of America's largest corporations) now report that they believe IV & V to be important vs. only 52% a year ago." >
> Questions:
> > Is IV & V important?
Answer: Mostly for lawyers.
> > If so, why didn't America's largest corporations think so a year ago?
Answer: Somebody explained the legal risk to them.
> > Should I be concerned about this?
Answer: No.
> > Other Questions: >
> Is the US really 'the leader of the pack'?
Answer: Too close to call.
> > If so, then should I be concerned about the rest of the world?
Answer: No.
> > If so, then what constitutes a "laggard".
Answer: A non-English speaking country with incompetent public relations.
> > Even if there are *zero* embedded systems failures, might not this be a worldwide disaster?
Answer: No.
> > Are failures in one system or at one company likely to affect other companies and other systems?
Answer: Possible yes. Likely, no.
> > If so, then isn't it true that there is no telling how bad this thing could get?
Answer: No. All the probabilities point to a low rate of failures.
> > Will unremediated systems fail and, if so, does that mean systems other than the "most mission critical" should be expected to fail in large part?
Answer: Not really. A lot of companies were devoting some resources to non-critical even while the critical were not complete. It was not a linear process because all resources were not interchangeable. That is, some staff could work on non-criticals because, at certain points, there was nothing for them to do on criticals. >
> If so, could this also have a deliterious effect on the economy?
Answer: Maybe.
> > Is the Fed. gov. generally ahead of or behind the largest corporations in America? Same question for the State govs. The local/county govs?
Answer: Too complex to judge. Governments usually LOOK worse off because a lot of public oversight is required of gummint work, while private companies can hide lots of things. (I'm not saying governments don't hide things, it's just harder.)
> > ______ > > I would be genuinely appreciative if even one 'Polly' could give me straight answers to these questions.
Answer: A year ago I would have spent more time with this, but at 99 days I'm no longer interested in hearing speculation and extrapolation about percentages and surveys and 10-Q statements and size of Y2K budgets. I'm not going to read the latest Senate report.
It's too late, news media and survey-takers move too slowly, and, as I pointed out in posts last spring, use old data, a process I called "Zombie Journalism." The methodology of the surveys is usually unknown, the participants are often self-selected--I don't have time for it.
Now, at 99 days, I only have time to look for actual failures.
If we do not see failures ramping up this year, then we won't see serious trouble at rollover (January 1- 5) because:
(A) If remediation largely worked for code that will use 2000 dates before year-end, then it must also have largely worked for the code that will not be executed until rollover.
(B) Serious failures can't all be covered up. The press coverage will be intense. Failures that would not have been local news three years ago will be national news.
(C) To think there will not be failures in the fourth quarter, but we will see them at rollover requires going back to the old discredited notion that January 1 is a brick wall and there will be no advance signs.
The next step is that if little happens at rollover, then a lot less is going to happen at all the later "danger dates." We have to be in big trouble by January 5 or the Y2K roadshow is over. We won't be in trouble on that day unless we see a rising Y2K failure rate in 1999.
Y2K failures in the fourth quarter--keep your eyes peeled. (o_o)
-- genroberts (genroberts@aol.com), September 23, 1999
I, too, have been alarmed at the Cap Gemini - Rubin Systems survey. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has noticed the trend: as the months have gone by, more and more and more and more of the companies in the admittedly small sample admit they will not finish remediating critical systems.So, Hoff, that's your cue to jump in.... ;-)
-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 23, 1999.
Ed Yourdon's response to Hoffmeister's critique of Yourdon's "open letter" to Alan Greenspan pretty much raked Hoffy over the coals about this "if we don't see Y2K problems occuring much in 1999, we sure won't see them in 2000" belief. Intuitively, I would think: gee, if we could just convince the pollies that Y2K problems are mainly going to occur AFTER computers attempt to roll from 1999 (99) to 2000 (00) rather than BEFORE, then they would "get it". But, at this point, I think that we all know better, and with 99 days to go until Jan 1, that just will not happen.
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 23, 1999.
I LOVE this bit:If we do not see failures ramping up this year, then we won't see serious trouble at rollover (January 1- 5) because:
(A) If remediation largely worked for code that will use 2000 dates before year-end, then it must also have largely worked for the code that will not be executed until rollover.
That's a supposition based ENTIRELY on IGNORANCE. "The Titanic has shown no evidence to date of sinking; therefore it cannot sink."
(B) Serious failures can't all be covered up. The press coverage will be intense. Failures that would not have been local news three years ago will be national news.
Not when the gov't "requests" that the newsies only report "positive" Y2K stories, coupled with the COMPLETE lack of INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM skills of the "modern generation" of "reporters"....
(C) To think there will not be failures in the fourth quarter, but we will see them at rollover requires going back to the old discredited notion that January 1 is a brick wall and there will be no advance signs.
Only one small problem with this statement: Jan 1st IS a "brick wall". Whether or not we see any advance signs is immaterial.
Yup. The Polly mind... Darwin would be proud...
"The Titanic sank on an ocean that was 99% free of icebergs."
-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), September 23, 1999.
If only the companies, especially the banks, can increase their public relations efforts, we will be safe. PLease, patriots, if you find yourselves going hungry, pretend you are eating and be cheerful!!! Maybe we can get no one to notice there are shortages.
-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 23, 1999.
"if we don't see Y2K problems occuring much in 1999, we sure won't see them in 2000"This "logic" amazes me. My rubber stamp is worn out. They call it the Y2K problem for a very good reason, not the Y1999 problem. What's so hard to understand about this? It ain't Y2K yet.
Programming is all about choice, A or B, C or D. With the tiny exception of programs that do look-ahead processing, the "00" choice hasn't been made yet.
Hoff and co. are the first to point out the "failed" predictions, but they are making an absolute prediction here. I just don't get it.
Tick... Tock... <:00=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 23, 1999.
Dennis wrote:The Polly mind... Darwin would be proud...
The polly mindset (which the vast majority of this country exhibits) is proof positive that Darwin's theory of evolution is bunk. In the evolutionary scheme, any creature as prone to ignoring reality as humans are should have become extinct long ago.
-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), September 23, 1999.
Sysman, what is amazing is you either don't understand or won't understand the argument I made.I'm not talking about date-related errors.
I'm talking about errors encountered directly as a result of system implementations and remediation.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 23, 1999.
KOS, impossible to reason with people that use magical thinking. We're attempting to pierce a shield that protects their mind from reality.The mind denies what it cannot process. Some pollies can't process the whole picture, and some just plain can't accept the consequences.
-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 23, 1999.
Nabi said:The polly mindset (which the vast majority of this country exhibits) is proof positive that Darwin's theory of evolution is bunk. In the evolutionary scheme, any creature as prone to ignoring reality as humans are should have become extinct long ago.
I agree with that statement ON ITS SURFACE.
HOWEVER, two points invalidate it.
1) The overwhelming prevalence of the "Polly mindset" has been evidenced ONLY in the last 40 years or so. Prior to that time, Americans were MUCH more likely to see events objectively and make appropriate adjustments to their behaviors. (The "dumbing" of America can largely be blamed on mass-media, specifically TeeVee. Since then, "public relations" firms have perfected the art of swaying the masses. Included in that has been the decline of the quality of journalists, due to the domination of the "infotainment" industry, where even NEWS has to "get ratings".)
2) The population of America (and the WORLD, for that matter) has reached a point in this century such that it CANNOT be supported EXCEPT through the technology available today. The "stupid ones", who would have died off by the process of natural selection (ever read the Darwin Awards?), are now, for the most part, able to contribute to the gene pool, and drain society as a whole.
Just a couple of tidbits, and MOO!
-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), September 23, 1999.
Hoff,What I do understand is that remediation will cause some other non-date related errors, and IMHO it's just added fuel to the fire. Looks to me like you're saying that there is no fire to begin with.
What do you base your opinion on that these types of other errors will "dwarf" Y2K errors? From me experience, most "fixes" do work, Y2K related or not, after one has done proper testing, refixing, testing again, etc. Yes, unexpected results do occur, but not for every change, maybe 1 in 10.
I don't think the problems will be with the fixed code. It's the code that won't be fixed in time, or the over-looked routine in a fixed program, or the expanded record that gets read by a program that may not do any date processing, but who's record layout wasn't changed. I could name dozens of other reasons. If this is what you are saying, then yes, I do understand your point.
We disagree on 1) when these errors, date processing and others, will occur, and 2) how many of them there will be. I say we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg yet, and you say that the water is so clear that we can see the whole thing.
Tick... Tock... <:00=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 23, 1999.
99 days.
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), September 23, 1999.
Sysman, I tried to explain in detail the estimates.Here it is again:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001F mM
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 23, 1999.
What an entertaining thread this is!To Nabi: If everyone but you is wrong and doing fine, there just might be a simpler explanation than Darwin being wrong combined (I guess) with sheer luck on the part of everyone. But you'll never suspect what that might be...
To Sysman: Gee, Lucent and Hershey are implementing SAP to fix their y2k problems, and they're having a terrible time of it. Yet you continue to post that you just can't see any problem at all because it's not 2000 yet. I suggest that you visit either Lucent or Hershey and explain how stupid they are to think they're having trouble when next year hasn't come yet. They would be very glad to hear this, I'm sure.
Dennis:
Your response is so blockheaded it'll take more than a word to the wise, there being nothing wise about your observations. So we'll try many words to the dumb (not expecting any better results though, sadly)
[A) If remediation largely worked for code that will use 2000 dates before year-end, then it must also have largely worked for the code that will not be executed until rollover.
That's a supposition based ENTIRELY on IGNORANCE. "The Titanic has shown no evidence to date of sinking; therefore it cannot sink." ]
If you read the actual argument (try it for once), you'll see that (to use your metaphor) this Titanic has been slamming into one iceberg after another all during 1999. These icebergs (for the slow learners) take the form of remediated code put back into production, introduced errors in that code, upgrades (with their own bugs), patches (that often don't work), and whole new implementations of ground-up systems (often with real attendant nightmares). Even a few (gasp!) lookaheads. And Lo! we have no dominos, no recession, no market decline, no nuthin.
Now, the argument goes, we should have a damn good idea how many problems all of this has caused, which ought to give us one hell of a solid baseline for extrapolation. Hoffmeister has been pushing your face in this for several months now, but he can't get you to open your eyes. Indeed, there's no indication you even *have* eyes. But the ignorance is entirely yours, and we'll be generous and assume it's voluntary ignorance, since stupidity is forever.
[(B) Serious failures can't all be covered up. The press coverage will be intense. Failures that would not have been local news three years ago will be national news.
Not when the gov't "requests" that the newsies only report "positive" Y2K stories, coupled with the COMPLETE lack of INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM skills of the "modern generation" of "reporters".... ]
I'll make a deal with you, dunderhead. You keep y2k a secret from everybody by controlling the media, refusing to investigate, and insisting on positive stories. Keep it as dark a secret as you like for as long as you want. In exchange, I agree to remain completely in the dark forever, and go on with my life just like nothing happened. OK? Hee hee hee. What a dork!
Unless you want to join Sysman's visit to Hershey et. al. to explain to them how next year hasn't come so their problems haven't either?
[(C) To think there will not be failures in the fourth quarter, but we will see them at rollover requires going back to the old discredited notion that January 1 is a brick wall and there will be no advance signs.
Only one small problem with this statement: Jan 1st IS a "brick wall". Whether or not we see any advance signs is immaterial. ]
I'll take this as an answer to Engineer's question. If we're still alive on January 2, then you agree nothing happened, OK? Sheesh, we're seeing furious activity, we're seeing tests, we're seeing all the things Hoffmeister has explained in such loving detail, and doomies like Dennis cannot see what they're seeing! Dennis is right and Yourdon is wrong, and Cap Gemini is wrong, and Hamasaki is wrong, and Gartner Group is wrong and Hershey is just stupid, I guess.
And finally, we have Chris. Chris looks around at all the problems we're not having, at all the dominos that aren't falling (despite near-universal doomie predictions), at all the progress reports and test results, all the CIO's who aren't leaving their posts as predicted, all the bank runs that aren't happening as predicted, all the power plants running with clocks set to next year, ad nauseum. And what does she conclude? That everyone *else* just can't handle the consequences! That those who open their eyes and SEE what's not happening are BLIND! That those who observe the actual reality are shielded from it, because she can't see it, and SHE has no blind spots, no sirree!
No wonder the inmates are so baffled trying to peer into the minds of the sane. The sane are hopelessly unable to appreciate the reality of the genuine delusions we take so seriously here. What *could* be wrong with them. I'm reminded of the Far Side cartoon of the dog scientists trying to understand the doorknob principle!
Great entertainment.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 23, 1999.
I just completed listening to Howard Rubin on Ed Yardeni's T-100 at T-100 Audio Conference and what I heard was basically this:"What we have here is a bi-polar environment." Can anyone dispute this who has read forums such as this where folks make generalizations about doomlits and pollies? "There needs to be a balance between complacence and sensible preparedness." Who exactly disputed this one?
Yardeni basically replied with, "The burden of proof is thrown back on the skeptics." I might add that Rubin was the 12th speaker in this audio conference, and (in general) all those above him had reported that the important stuff...electricity, telecom, etc., will be working next year.
You might check out the audio seminar for more information.
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 23, 1999.
Sysman:Remember how I posted that systems had been moved back into production and how some systems worked fine and others required almost a day of fire-fighting? These problems that you mentioned...such as an overlooked routine in a fixed program or the expanded record that gets read by an unremediated program, but whose record layout was not changed...were the reasons behind that day of fire-fighting once systems were moved back into production. They are no longer an issue on remediated systems that have been moved back in.
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 23, 1999.
Sir Hoff,I have read your entire thread, and still don't see any evidence that "these types of other errors will "dwarf" Y2K errors" except your opinion. Don't bother answering now, I'll reread it again when I get home. I gotta do some real work now.
Flint,
Don't twist my words. You're starting to sound stupid. I have said, consistently, that 1999 errors would be minimal. I consider 2 out of 20,000 minimal. What's your point, Flint?
Anita,
Were these systems time-machine tested, end-to-end? Why wern't those errors found then? How many people are doing ene-to-end testing, I mean everything, on-line systems, batch processing, hardware, like telcom front-ends, PCs, etc, in a time machine environment, exchanging data with business partners, also in a time-machine environment? There will be no real ene-to-end test of the "world network" 'til 2000-01-01.
Later folks. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 23, 1999.
///Everybody is READY !
Is thaaat so?
I Don't Think So.
I know some very worried people, working on some very important technical systems. THAT ARE NOT READY !
Maybe they will get fixed in time. Maybe they won't. Too bad they already reported they're READY.
The meter is running.
-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 23, 1999.
Additional information for genroberts:Lest you believe that all of us who see Y2k unfolding optimistically think alike, you may want to review a post I made on the Debunker forum in response to someone who felt that Peter deJager did the public a disservice in alarming them to a danger that didn't really exist. I've actually seen this argument go BOTH ways. The optimists believe (in retrospect) that there was no problem to start with. When another optimist states that there will be inconveniences, yet no life-threatening problems that affect masses of people, the pessimists say, "Then WHY did they spend $6 billion on it?" The obvious response is that there will be no life-threatening problems that affect masses of people BECAUSE they spent $6 billion on it.
You can check out my thoughts and experiences here
Moving ahead in Yardeni's T-100 audio conference, beyond the comments I mentioned above by Howard Rubin, there is another 1-HOUR segment that had Mr. Rubin both addressing statistics that you've mentioned, (shortly into the segment labeled Patrick D'Acre, Publisher, Y2k Update Report), and going on to answer, perhaps the questions you addressed in the question/answer session. These answers are 36 minutes into this 1-hour segment.
I took notes on this segment (just for you), and it seems that Cap Gemini has seen the same that I have. Evaluations are performed on systems, remediation compared to the money lost in not moving forward with such things as E-Commerce, and decisions made. I mentioned this in the link presented above. No one intends to put themselves out of business. The MOST important things get done FIRST. I trust you'll have the patience to listen to the ENTIRE T-100 conference. You needn't do it in one sitting.
Sysman: The problems at THIS site were due to the Y2k team modifying ONLY the programs that had date changes (as you'd suspected.) Data transfer wouldn't occur until evening and the problems were worked out before that time.
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 23, 1999.
Flint wrote:To Nabi: If everyone but you is wrong and doing fine, there just might be a simpler explanation than Darwin being wrong combined (I guess) with sheer luck on the part of everyone. But you'll never suspect what that might be...
Flint, I have no idea what point you're trying to make; seems like this is just another of your attempts to prove what a big brain you have. But just for your information, I do NOT assume that everyone except me is wrong.
Do you, Flint???
-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), September 23, 1999.
No talking please,I also have first-hand knowledge of a Fortune 1000 company that has not finished remediating their mission critical systems. They also have not completed their contingency plans (actually, in some areas, they have not even begun!). They are on-record in their 10-Q filing as having completed remediation AND testing, as well as having completed contingency plans as of August 31, 1999.
-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), September 23, 1999.
Since I referenced the T-100 conference in a response to someone recently and refered to the fact that this thread had died, I'd like to throw it to the top for more comments. Did NONE of you listen to the conference? Did NONE of you hear Rubin's remarks in the Patrick D'Acre segment? REAL PLAYER can be downloaded free of charge from the site selected, so there's no excuse for not listening.
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 25, 1999.
I typically have better things to do on Saturday nights, but my house- mate played golf all day and is out cold on the front-room floor.Is it that no one CHOSE to listen to this seminar? Is it because *I* recommended that folks listen to this seminar that no one did? I'm simply amazed that so many "experts" can gather together in ONE place on ONE day and no one here comments on the results save myself.
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 25, 1999.
Anita, You write: "The obvious response is that there will be no life-threatening problems that affect masses of people BECAUSE they spent $6 billion on it." From my thread called a rational explanation for making preparations:C. Whether or not Y2K related expenditures clearly indicate Y2K Readiness
The term, "Y2K Readiness," is legal concept concerning liability and not the actual progress of Y2K projects. However, the use of this term in the context of Proposition One suggests that it refers to a threshold point (delta) in Y2K projects at which risks associated with Y2K are no longer serious or severe. Some argue that Y2K related expenditures (as one instance of indication) clearly indicate that the risks associated with the Y2K Technology Problem are no longer serious or severe. On the contrary, Y2K related expenditures are neither clear in indicating that Y2K projects in total (or individually) have reached delta nor do Y2K Readiness expenditures provide a full reading of individual and total Y2K progress made.
S.2392
EVIDENCE EXCLUSION- No year 2000 readiness disclosure, in whole or in part, shall be admissible against the maker of that disclosure to prove the accuracy or truth of any year 2000 statement set forth in that disclosure
source:http:// www.itpolicy.gsa.gov/mks/yr2000/hill/s2392es.htmH.R.775
An Act
To establish certain procedures for civil actions brought for damages relating to the failure of any device or system to process or otherwise deal with the transition from the year 1999 to the year 2000, and for other purposes.
source: http://www.y2k.gov/new/C.htmlThe term, "Y2K Readiness," is a legal concept concerning liability and not the actual progress of Y2K projects. A proper understanding of this concept will come from a reading of the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act of 1998, (a U.S statute enacted on October 19, 1998. See S.2392< /a>) and the Y2K Act (see H.R. 775). In general, Y2K Readiness should not be understood as a successful and diligently conducted Year 2000 conversion (another legal concept which also does not mean absolute compliance) However, Y2K Readiness may indicate that a Year 2000 assessment and conversion is underway. Therefore, Y2K Readiness expenditures (generating Y2K readiness statements and publishing these statements, for example) can be said not to necessarily indicate the progress of (total and individual) Y2K projects.
Findings Contradict Regulators' Tallies
BUSINESS WIRE - March 8, 1998In a new survey of Y2K preparedness, 247 of 1,128 banks and S&Ls reported completion dates that were deemed to be inadequate, according to Weiss Ratings Inc., a leading bank rating agency.
Source: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000b 3u
Anticipating Y2K
World Bank, Global Commodity Markets Report - July 1999There have already been some unpleasant surprises in preparations for Y2K such as the discharge of raw sewage into a Los Angeles park during tests of computer and electronic systems (Washington Post), the loss of telephone service during Y2K testing in Canada (The Ottawa Citizen) , and the shut down of a nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania during testing.
Source:htt p://www.worldbank.org/prospects/gcmonline/y2kfeature.pdf
Despite the vast amounts of money spent, "some unpleasant surprises" have occurred and are occurring. On the other hand, some Y2K projects have missed important deadlines-- despite the vast amounts of money being spent. Therefore, there is no necessary and defining correlation between money spent and the success of Y2K projects. If there is no necessary and defining correlation between money spent and the success Y2K projects, it is unlikely that money spent is a clear indication that "delta" has been achieved. However, it is possible to propose that the vast amounts of money spent may be viewed in a court of law as a clear indication of Y2K Readiness on the part of an organization.
Quarterly Report (SEC form 10-Q)
EXXON CORP (XON) August 31, 1999Notwithstanding the substantive work efforts described above, the corporation could potentially experience disruptions to some mission critical operations or deliveries to customers as a result of Year 2000 issues, particularly in the first few weeks of the year 2000.
Through June 30, 1999, about $210 million of costs had been incurred in the corporation's efforts to achieve Year 2000 compliant systems. The total cost to the corporation of achieving Year 2000 compliant systems is currently estimated to be $225 to $250 million, primarily over the 1997-1999 timeframe, and is not expected to be a material incremental cost impacting Exxon's operations, financial condition or liquidity.Source: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/9 90831/xon.html
GM To Spend $360-$420 Million On Y2K Bug
Reuters - August 16, 1999General Motors Corp., the world's largest auto maker, said Monday that it will spend $360 million to $420 million to prepare its extensive computer systems for the year 2000.
GM already spent $142 million in 1997 and 1998 and about $96 million in 1999 for work on the year 2000 bug, while EDS has performed $233 million of work under its master service agreement.
Source: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001F f7
Vast amounts of money have been spent (and is being spent) on Y2K projects. Past and current spending, however, fail to account for future spending and upgrading of Y2K project budgets. However vast the spending, such spending is one indication (and a clear indication) that the risks associated with the Y2K Technology Problem to organizations are serious and severe. In fact, no absolute conclusion can be drawn (from the vast amounts of money spent) that these Y2K projects have successfully reached "delta" until after the rollover.
Third Answer
It can be argued that vast amounts of money may be admitted as evidence to indicate the Y2K Readiness of an organization in a court's determination of liability. It can neither be said that the vast amounts of money spent on Y2K Readiness necessarily reflects spending on Y2K assessment, conversion, or compliance. Nor does it reflect that "delta" has been achieved in the total sum of Y2K projects. Ultimately, "Delta" can not be verified until after the rollover. Generically speaking, organizations have and are spending vast amounts of money on Y2K projects in light of the serious risks associated with Y2K technology problems that may have impact on them.
Despite this spending, some Y2K projects have encountered problems and missed deadlines, therefore it can be said that serious risks remain. If there is a serious risk to an organization or one of its holdings (a nuclear power plant, for example), people are at risk (in this case, those people whose local grid receives electricity from the nuclear generation of electricity and, perhaps, those people who live within the vicinity of a nuclear power plant ). In view of that serious risks associated with Y2K are not necessarily mitigated by any amount of money to spent on Y2K projects), personal preparations are advisable; it can also be said that personal preparations are prudent.
-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), September 26, 1999.
Stan:PLEASE don't throw a 'bot my way on this one. You know VERY WELL that I have absolutely NOTHING against folks preparing for disruptions. I feel quite comfortable in my personal level of preparedness (put to good use tonight when an electrical storm took out power for several hours), and I didn't have to fumble my way into the basement [as though we have basements in Texas] to find the flashlight to help me find the matches and the oil lamps.
You know as well as I do that anyone who receives both the good news AND the bad news on this forum is considered a pollyanna. You ALSO know quite well that only the bad news is accepted as truth. Flint's been saying this for quite some time, and he's being treated like a LEPER on this forum. A number of folks here have used Howard Rubin to reinforce their pessimistic opinions. He spoke more than once on the T-100 audio seminar, and I'm attempting to solicit responses regarding his words. I assume you weren't interested in listening. If so, might I ask WHY?
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 26, 1999.
Anita,As for Yardeni's interview with Howard Rubin, here are my own notes:
Howard Rubin's "bi-polar environment" describes a political and public climate of good news, happy talk, and "arrogant complacency" that misunderstands Y2K and what might go wrong in Y2K. He illustrates this bi-polarity by illustrating that Y2K is not a hurricane, but public complacency and confidence that hurricane readiness is somehow equivalent to Y2K preparedness is mistaken. Public confidence should be built, he explains, on the readiness to deal with unknown of Y2K unknowns. The danger of the happy talk is that if anything happens, people may lose trust in government and industries, and this is a problem that may be much worse than Y2K.
The good news is nice to hear, and Rubin isn't completely cynical about the factuality of this good news. If you measure progress by the number of things converted internally to an organization and also the implementation of contingency plans, that's not the same thing as measuring the success of what's going to happen in the real world interactions between organizations in 2000. The technical shop of an individual organization is not going to determine what's going to happen. Rubin says that it's also important to realize that the event isn't just January 1, 2000. Y2K is a long term event. And Red Cross or Fema don't have experience dealing with multiple disasters on several fronts. The success of this hinges on people's ability to deal with the unknowns.
One big problem that Rubin notes is that end to end testing beyond the systems level (in the interfaces and interactions between buisnesses and globally) is not happening. Good contingency plans can't be made without this kind of mapping. Explains Rubin: "If you don't have power, you don't have telecommunications for very long." The most interesting thing that Yes Corp has done, says Rubin, is their working with countries to help various industries understand the profound interconnectedness of industries and the infrastructure in general. Apparently, other nations have had a difficult time figuring this out on their own or coordinating efforts. There are places that will be blacked out and we won't know how they are dealing with Y2K problems.
Sincerely, Stan Faryna
-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), September 26, 1999.
Thanks for listening, Stan. Did you also listen to Patrick D'Acre's segment (admittedly an hour long) and hear what Mr. Rubin added there?
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 26, 1999.
Anita,You write and my comments follow:
"You know as well as I do that anyone who receives both the good news AND the bad news on this forum is considered a pollyanna."
Perhaps. It's hard to say. I have been waiting for a truly balanced conversation and it just hasn't happened on the forum. But it is obvious that Red and Flint are appreciated by some people at the same time that they are disliked by others. On the other hand, just because someone makes subtle arguments, doesn't mean they are a fence sitter.
"You ALSO know quite well that only the bad news is accepted as truth."
I agree that it often looks like only bad news is accepted as truth. However, I don't believe this to be the case-- except for a very few. On the other hand, it looks like only good news is accepted as truth by pollies. Of course, I am giving some pollies the benefit of the doubt.
"Flint's been saying this for quite some time, and he's being treated like a LEPER on this forum."
Lately, Flint has been making positive statements that are neither irrefutable nor absolute. He's also become quite mean without his smokes. There was a time when I had a great deal of sympathy for him.
"A number of folks here have used Howard Rubin to reinforce their pessimistic opinions."
Howard Rubin is no Polly poster child. Nor is he a Doomer poster child.
Sincerely, Stan Faryna
-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), September 26, 1999.
My notes on Patrick's thing...THE SPIEL
Howard Rubin said that they have a new survey that now indicates that top managers have finally figured out that Y2K is a big deal. About time isn't it?! Less than half of the companies will be compliant in their most critical mission critical systems by year's end, but only one company in ten *assumes* their non-compliance is a serious risk to business continutity. Six percent don't know. This says nothing about what the risks (due to their non-compliance) are to those beyond these organizations. 82 percent of the respondents said that they had, in fact, experienced Y2K failures in systems that had not been fixed and fixed. 2 percent of these problems are reported as causing serious business disruptions. America's largest companies are working hard on fixing the problem. I'm not surprised.
John Ogen from Monsanto, the maker of the genetically engineered seeds that threaten global food production (according to world opinion), says that they are really glad that they have taken another look at IT and what IT can do for their organization. In the year 2000, they are going to really innovate their company and maximize technological tools for achieving business goals. Hey, I thought we were talking about Y2K? Oh yeah, they will deal with Y2K problems should they occur.
Dan Clark (Trigon Blue Cross/Blue Shield) says they started addressing Y2K in 1994, started remediating in 1996, and they are just wrapping up into internal end to end testing of mission critical systems. They need to focus on contingency plans, finish their tests, and implement a hardware and software freeze. But they are really into developing web-based applications that will improve customer service and reduce costs. Trigon is looking into replacing or re-engineering legacy systems after the rollover. Uh huh. What's really important is that Trigon is gonning to get into web-based and off-line direct marketing.
Tom Wilkie (Household International) says they are a big financial company. They say that they are "fundamentally complete" and they had relatively low spending on Y2K projects unlike their competitors. They will test their internal communications command systems in November. There is a crying need to know about customers and what customers need. They are going to get on the web and they are going to do cool things.
QUESTIONS FROM THE MEDIA
Howard answering the first question:
Most companies believe that their own non-compliance will not cause them problems.
Dan Clark answering the second question:
They had a couple of incidents. Some data got updated incorrectly.
John Ogen answering the third question:
We're not concerened. Government interfaces aren't critical to our business continuity.
Jim Woodward answering the fourth question:
The survey data indicates a high level of confidence, but we can't say everything is fine and rosy. That's what contingency plans are for.
Howard Rubin answering the fourth question:
Contingency plans, zero date strategies, and continuity plans will make the difference.
John Ogen answering the fifth question:
We don't have the luxury of going to an alternative supplier in some cases. They have tried to develop plans to stockpile raw and finished goods.
Dan Clark answering the fifth question:
We are working on contingency plans. You bet.
John Hogan answering the sixth question:
Non-answer.
Tom Wilkie answering the seventh question:
They spent 20 million dollars on Y2K. He seemed a little defensive about this.
Howard answering the eighth question:
Non-answer.
Tom Wilkie answering the ninth question:
People will be there to see if the computers are still working and checking if the data is accurate.
John Ogen answering the ninth question:
In general, people will be there to see if the computers are still working. They'll also go into a pause mode where they put some things on hold and limit business as usual activity.
Dan Clark answering the tenth question:
Trigon estimated that Y2K was going to cost $22 million, but they will spend about $21.2 million by 1Q of next year. They're not really done.
John Ogen answering the tenth question:
Montsano estimated that Y2K was going to cost $35 million. By 2Q, they have spent $27 million.
Howard Rubin answering the tenth question:
Bad data firewalls are going up.
John Ogen answering the eleventh question:
Embedded chips and systems are a concern. They have mostly relied on manufacturers and vendors alerting them to potential problems.
Tom Wilkie answering the twelveth question:
After much hesitation, he said that they don't anticipate leap year problems.
-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), September 26, 1999.
Stan:Thanks again for listening. I know how time-consuming the audio conference is (in general), as I've spent an entire day listening to EACH of them. Just as an aside,I've always appreciated Yardeni's style. He's been pessimistic in his forecasts, but his appraisals have always reflected updates, and he's ALWAYS honored the opinions of those who disagreed.
I appreciate your opinions. I didn't walk away from the listen with the same conclusions, but I'm prompted to listen again to understand how we could both hear the same thing and draw different conclusions. I tend to disregard things like hesitation, having engaged in some public speaking wherein I found myself saying [silently] "Knees...stop shaking." There's a BIG difference between presenting a speech that one has studied for hours or even a question/answer session wherein one has time to prepare for the questions that would be asked and "shooting from the hip" on a question. It's similar to watching Jeopardy. Once the answer is given, I kick myself because I KNEW that answer. I simply couldn't get the old brain to process the information before the buzzer sounded.
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 26, 1999.
Anita,Yes, I understand that public speaking can be difficult even if you don't have to face an audience. I had a terrifying crash course when my publisher published my telephone number in a Radio/TV Talk Trade Magazine. But most of my hesitations were about translating complex ideas as quickly as possible before interviewers would interrupt and trash/distort what I was saying. In this case, the speakers had much leisure to answer questions to their satisfaction and no one was going for the throat. Furthermore, they were hung up on the dilbert-esque mantras (i.e., "contingency planning", "zero date strategies", "continuity planning", "clear management") and they started to seem uncomfortable repeating their own mantras over and over again. Even they (listening to themselves) must have realized that the non-answer mantras weren't as clever as they might've thought before the conference got started. Myself, I was disappointed by Yardeni's 100 day conference. And we helped to set up one of Yardeni's interviews.
Sincerely, Stan Faryna
-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), September 26, 1999.