http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_hyatt/19991004_xcmhy_how_bad_wi.shtml

How bad will it be?

) 1999 Michael S. Hyatt

I speak several times a month on Y2K to various trade associations, businesses, and church groups. I also appear on numerous talk radio shows. In addition, I get 70 - 80 e-mails a day from people visiting my website. As a result, I interact with scores of people on a weekly basis about Y2K. Without a doubt, the No. 1 question I get is this: "So how bad do you really think it's going to be?"

The honest answer is: I don't know. I get up each day hoping for good news. I browse the usual Y2K websites along with the major media, reading anywhere from 25-30 articles a day. On average, the bad news seems to outweigh the good -- at least the news that can be verified.

While it is true that we are making headway in getting computer systems repaired or replaced, it is also true that the days are slipping by more quickly than the progress being made. (I can't substantiate that statement; it's simply a subjective judgment based on the volume of material I'm reading.) One of the things that is particularly frustrating is the quality of information available. There are at least three problems related to the reports I'm seeing.

1. The data are almost always self-reported. There is very little independent, third-party certification going on. For the most part, government agencies, infrastructure providers, and businesses are asking us to take their word for it. All of them are carefully managing the information that is released to the public. In some cases, it appears that disinformation is being purposefully distributed. Ronald Reagan's advice at the height of the cold war seems particularly apropos: "trust but verify." Until we have someone to do the verification for us, we have to assume the worst.

2. Information about Y2K progress is sometimes overstated. Several months ago, the General Accounting Office called two federal agencies (Defense and USDA) on the carpet for reporting as compliant systems that were merely on a list to be made compliant. Assuming the best, programmers are an optimistic lot. They generally promise more than they can deliver. According to the Standish Group International, 73 percent of all corporate software development projects are late. In addition, the easier systems are sometimes targeted for repair first, thus distorting the rate of progress. If the more difficult systems are saved for last, things could slow down immeasurably.

3. Conclusions about Y2K progress are often contradictory. Two people can look at the same report and draw opposite conclusions. Everyone has their own agenda (yes, me, too), and they will necessarily filter the data through their own presuppositions. Others will purposely "spin" the information and willfully distort it for the sake of their own gain or fear of their own loss. It's easy to pick on the people who are selling Y2K books, generators, and food, accusing them of overstating the Y2K problem for the sake of financial gain. But the truth is that some of those who are downplaying the problem -- banks, federal agencies, and utility companies -- are doing so for fear of financial loss. And believe me, they have a lot more at stake than any Y2K author or speaker.

The bottom line is that things are going to get even more confusing as we move toward "D day." The point of absolute certainty will never come. As much as we might like to know what will happen on Jan. 1, 2000, we simply won't know until we get there.

So how then do we plan? Good question. At some point, you have to make some assumptions about the future and plan accordingly. This isn't easy even under the best of circumstances. You have to accept the possibility that your planning assumptions are wrong and be willing to live with the consequences if they are. In my view, the issue is not prophecy -- predicting the future with pinpoint accuracy -- but personal risk management -- understanding what could happen and deciding how you can protect yourself from it.

With that in mind, let me tell you what I am personally assuming about the impact of Y2K. I am still assuming at least a twelve-month disruption of basic goods and services, including periods of: No electrical power No clean water No telecommunications Shortages of food, gasoline, clothing, and all retail goods Wide-spread bank failures and inaccessibility of funds

A stock market crash A dramatic drop in real estate values An economic depression Wide-spread unemployment Civil unrest, including protests, riots, and general lawlessness Inability of government agencies to deliver welfare, Medicare, Social Security, and Veterans benefits No meaningful leadership from the Clinton administration And good fishing weather (I just threw that in for grins.)

Yes, I know, it's pretty grim. But keep in mind the fact that I am not saying any of this is going to happen. I am simply saying that each of these items are a possibility, and, therefore, I want to plan accordingly. Think of it this way: what's the risk if I am right and you plan for this scenario vs. the risk if I am right and you don't plan for this scenario.

To my way of thinking, there is no down side to preparedness. Sure, I may be out some money and effort if I plan and nothing much happens, but I would much prefer that to facing a scenario like I've described above without adequate preparation.

Whenever someone tells me they think that Y2K will be nothing more severe than a winter storm, I always respond with a comment and two questions. First, I say, "I hope you are right." There is nothing I would enjoy more than being wrong in my assessment of Y2K. It would be a small price to pay for continuing our way of life. However, I regard preparing for Y2K like health insurance. I continue to pay the premiums, hoping I never have to make a major claim.

Second, I ask, "If we can't get the vast majority of these systems fixed in the next three months, what makes you think we can get them fixed three days after they fail -- particularly in a chaotic environment where there may be widespread disruptions?" This just doesn't seem reasonable to me. If we don't get most of the systems repaired or replaced in time -- and at this point I personally think it's a long shot -- then I think we're in for a much longer-term problem.

Third, I ask, "What evidence do you have that I'm wrong?" Usually, the person making the statement doesn't have anything concrete to offer; they simply respond with some version of "Well, we put a man on the moon, so I'm sure we can fix this problem, too!" or "I'm sure with all the brilliant computer people we have, they can come up with a solution" or "My bank (or some other company) is telling me they are about finished with their work." To which I usually respond, "Let me remind you: it was these same 'geniuses' that didn't have the foresight to make sure their programs would work correctly after the turn-of-the-century." I think this kind of confidence is, quite frankly, misplaced.

Like I said, "I hope they are right." However, until I know for sure, I'm going to follow the advice of our colonial forefathers: "Trust God and keep your powder dry."

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Y2KOK.ORG), October 04, 1999

Answers

On the Intro page of my website, www.y2ksurvive.com, I have laid out my current thinking on just how bad Y2K is going to be, for those of you who may be interested in another opinion. Actually, my scenario is not terribly different from Mike Hyatt's but my approach is somewhat different.

Anyway, it's free information so take it for what it's worth!

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), October 04, 1999.

I think this is not unlikely. However, it could also be a complete disaster, which scares the hell out of me... Not that this is a pretty vision. He's so right in that people say, "Well, I don't think it's going to be that bad..." and I say, "On what do you base that opnion." They base it on the fact that they have done no research and thus nothing alarms them.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 04, 1999.

Some interesting issues are raised here. Concentrate for a moment on those y2k-related problems that have already happened.

Y2k bugs can be plotted on a spectrum from lowest to highest impact, and on a spectrum from easiest to hardest to fix. We have good reason to believe that organizations are exerting all effort to fix high- impact problems ASAP, and also exerting all effort to keep such problems hidden (they're terrible PR).

Accordingly, the actual problems we read about are those that have become newsworthy for some reason. And these fall at the far end of both spectra -- highest impact and hardest to fix, so they escape the "firewall" of confidentiality and reach outside (the news and the net).

Trying to understand the impact of the "normal" y2k problem by generalizing from the problems we read about, is like trying to determine the ability of the average person to play baseball by watching major league games. From this perspective, we are concluding that the worst y2k problems are "normal" in some sense.

On the other hand, we must notice that there are very few of them -- so few that unless we are (as on this forum) narrowly focused on them and combing all sources to find them, they're essentially invisible. The public at large remains pretty unaware of them.

Certainly you can argue, as Sysman does best, that 2000 hasn't come yet, so most y2k bugs have yet to strike. But Hoffmeister makes a strong case that problems introduced as a side effect of efforts to avoid date bugs per se (upgrades, bad fixes, problems with new implementations, etc.) have already struck, with minor damage. Whether problems will be worse after rollover may well depend on embedded systems.

However, rather than trying to discount y2k bugs based on newsworthiness and repair effort effects, those on this forum tend to surround their "facts" with problematical dark clouds. For example, non-computer problems (explosions, earthquakes), non-y2k problems in any way (normal screwups), and dire warnings about what *might* happen (with no real effort to establish probability).

Overall, this gives the impression of problems that may very likely be much larger than reality has demonstrated so far or may demonstrate in the future. Discounting only good news (for excellent reasons, to be sure) while accepting and highlighting bad news (including all warnings however realistic) is a technique highly unlikely to lead to an accurate picture.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 04, 1999.

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/6366

Above link gives 9/28/1999 testimony to Senate Y2K committee on Russia risk exposure to Y2K as follows:

"Utilities will operate at 40 percent of capacity for the first two months of 2000;

Transportation will be disrupted 80 percent of the time and telecommunications 50 percent of the time for a three-month period;

Hospitals will deal with nothing but emergencies for at least two months; Financial markets will be disrupted for 30 trading days; and

Banks will be disrupted for 20 business days."

Given that the USA has spent more billions over longer time, it should be safe to conclude that we face a less serious exposure than Russia. A Wild A** Guess of mine is that we should be at least 50% better off than Russia due to money spent and systems "ready". Adjusting by 50% gives:

Utilities will operate at 20 percent of capacity for the first month of 2000;

Transportation will be disrupted 40 percent of the time and telecommunications 25 percent of the time for 6 week period;

Hospitals will deal with nothing but emergencies for at least one month; Financial markets will be disrupted for 15 trading days; and

Banks will be disrupted for 10 business days.

I have not seen any other source spell out risk exposure by sector. If it exists for Russia, it must exist somewhere for the rest of the world especially the rest of the world where better information is available.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), October 04, 1999.

Sorry stupid math error. Correction to W.A.G. should read:

Utilities will operate at 70 percent of capacity for the first month of 2000;

If Russia were to operate at off 60% than a 50% better performance would be off 30%.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), October 04, 1999.