http://www.midrangesystems.com/article.asp?searchresult=1&ID=9299922040PM

The Y2K Bug Has Already Struck En Masse

By Joseph McKendrick Thursday, September 30, 1999

Where the Y2K Bug is Striking

 Financial miscalculation or loss 92 percent  Processing disruptions 84 percent  Customer service problems 38 percent  Logistics/supply chain problems 34 percent  Business disruptions 2 percent

Source: Cap Gemini America Inc.

A chilling new survey reveals that not only are systems at most of the nation's largest corporations already failing due to Y2K glitches, but that few companies are optimistic they'll be ready in time for the century rollover.

The survey, conducted by Cap Gemini America Inc. (New York), finds that 75 percent of the largest U.S. companies have already experienced a Year 2000-related date failure in their systems. Only about half of these companies (48 percent) expect to have all their critical systems ready when the Year 2000 hits, so they're preparing for the worst.

Similar surveys conducted last winter and spring found the number of large corporations reporting Y2K-related failures jumped from 55 percent to 72 percent. The most frequent failures involved financial miscalculation or loss, followed closely by "processing disruptions." More than one-third of the companies experienced Y2K-related customer service and logistics/supply chain problems. Virtually every respondent (99 percent) anticipates "an increase in systems failures into the remainder of 1999 and beyond."

More than nine out of 10 major corporations (92 percent) will sever ties with non-Year 2000-compliant suppliers of services and products, up from 82 percent in the last survey conducted in the spring. Firms "very likely" to stop doing business with non-compliant partners leapt from 21 percent to 36 percent since May.

Independent verification and validation (IV&V) of remediated code is now the key Y2K initiative underway at most companies. Nearly nine of 10 major firms (89 percent) rank their need for IV&V services as "high," compared with 52 percent last December. "Many firms handled much of their Year 2000 work in-house, and now recognize that their results need outside verification," says Jim Woodward, senior VP of Cap Gemini America. "IT executives want to show top management that the job was done right."

The survey also finds CEOs getting more involved in the Y2K process, signaling that, "Top management views the Year 2000 challenge as a business problem and not merely a technology problem," says Woodward. In fact, only 12 percent of top managers are delegating Year 2000 contingency planning to IT managers--down from 35 percent last year.

Ninety-six percent of top companies are establishing Year 2000 crisis management centers, up from 85 percent in the spring. In just about all cases, top executives will be taking charge of the centers.

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Y2KOK.ORG), October 05, 1999

Answers

You know, I would take all this blather about 'outside verification' a lot more seriously, and could quit worrying if I didn't work for one of these F500's. In fact, probably one of the few that got started early, budgeted big, dedicated staff and generally took the whole thing seriously. Starting back in 1994. Which company just yesterday informed the staff of a rather unusual incentive offer to be on-site on the evening of Dec. 31, 1999 until the afternoon of Jan 1, 2000, or as the memo put it 'Jan. 1, 1900'. With a mention in passing that it if there weren't enough volunteers, or not enough of the 'right' volunteers, that they would be ordered to show up. And that, oh by the way, our strategy is now 'fix on failure'. 6 years, millions of dollars, hundreds of staff years, and we are going to 'fix on failure'. I love it.

-- just another (another@engineer.com), October 06, 1999.

Cheerier & cheerier! NOT

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 06, 1999.

Man the bilge pumps!! Man the bilge pumps! The ocean's pouring in through the pilot house windows!!!

-- Jay Urban (jayho99@aol.com), October 06, 1999.

I was noticing last year that top executives were not paying all that much attention to their Y2k software projects. Usually, they had a team in place to work on this, but kept going right along with their other "pet" projects as well, often assigning the majority of their programming talent to the new stuff, and only paying scant attention to the work being done in the Y2k arena. Makes me think of someone who is restoring an old car and spends most of their time on the body and interior, without really checking to see how the work is going on the engine and transmission. Thus you end up with a real pretty looking car that is dead when it comes to trying to operate it. The experts like Cory were saying back then that the work was not getting done fast enough to finish before the rollover.

On a different note, I went to a meeting of our church board last night, to discuss spending some money on generator hookup for Y2k. I was expecting resistance, because that is what I had gotten before, but to my surprise they were willing to listen now and start spending some money on this matter. Not super concerned yet, but at least aware that there could be some real problems, and ready to start dealing with the basics. Better late than never, I guess, but we will be doing some fix on failure too, I think.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), October 06, 1999.

This is a shining example of "only hearing the part of the story you want to hear" or "we can make any news bad if we want to read it that way"

Heres why . . .

A chilling new survey reveals that not only are systems at most of the nation's largest corporations already failing due to Y2K glitches, but that few companies are optimistic they'll be ready in time for the century rollover.

And yet those corporations are still in business, still pumping out product arent they ? This doesn't suggest shortages, business failures, shutdowns, doom, gloom. It says what some have said all along . . its a real problem, it will occur, but where it does, the well-organised company will repair, work around and deal with it. You guys go off as if this is "evidence" of the system failing due to fragility. Actually, its evidence of the ability of the system to survive.

The survey, conducted by Cap Gemini America Inc. (New York), finds that 75 percent of the largest U.S. companies have already experienced a Year 2000-related date failure in their systems. Only about half of these companies (48 percent) expect to have all their critical systems ready when the Year 2000 hits, so they're preparing for the worst.

And this is bad news ? They're PREPPING. I thought you folk were programmed to smile and nod obediently when you hear about people preparing. Apparently not when its companies who's failure is a tenet of your disaster-predicting mind-set. They have failures now, and they are coping with them . . . they expect other failures, and they are prepared for them. Any questions ? Where is the bad news in all this ?

Similar surveys conducted last winter and spring found the number of large corporations reporting Y2K-related failures jumped from 55 percent to 72 percent. The most frequent failures involved financial miscalculation or loss, followed closely by "processing disruptions." More than one-third of the companies experienced Y2K-related customer service and logistics/supply chain problems. Virtually every respondent (99 percent) anticipates "an increase in systems failures into the remainder of 1999 and beyond."

So even tracking the data back over a year, the number of companies who, despite having experienced a Y2K failure at first hand, are still here, still in business, and now have the EXPERIENCE of solving such problems. Of course there will be an increase in systems failures based on their system of counting. If there have been 100 failures to date, and one more system glitches-out tomorrow, thats an increase in failures. The point is, they HAVE NOT brought companies to their knees, and the process of fixing and working round is EFFECTIVE.

More than nine out of 10 major corporations (92 percent) will sever ties with non-Year 2000-compliant suppliers of services and products, up from 82 percent in the last survey conducted in the spring. Firms "very likely" to stop doing business with non-compliant partners leapt from 21 percent to 36 percent since May.

Good. Thats evolution. The smart and efficient survive and expand, at the expense of the weak and slow. Thats also the way the market has worked for 100's of years. Why does this spell the end of the world ?

Independent verification and validation (IV&V) of remediated code is now the key Y2K initiative underway at most companies. Nearly nine of 10 major firms (89 percent) rank their need for IV&V services as "high," compared with 52 percent last December. "Many firms handled much of their Year 2000 work in-house, and now recognize that their results need outside verification," says Jim Woodward, senior VP of Cap Gemini America. "IT executives want to show top management that the job was done right."

Again . . this basically says, most people are finished, and have tested internally, and are waiting for someone impartial to come do the final test just to satisfy the doubters and fear-mongers. This is GOOD news.

The survey also finds CEOs getting more involved in the Y2K process, signaling that, "Top management views the Year 2000 challenge as a business problem and not merely a technology problem," says Woodward. In fact, only 12 percent of top managers are delegating Year 2000 contingency planning to IT managers--down from 35 percent last year.

So even the "pointy haired bosses" are waking up and getting involved. That blows away another doomer mantra. Obviously, the closer a target date gets, the more closely management will wish to monitor first hand what is going on. This indicates responsible management.

Ninety-six percent of top companies are establishing Year 2000 crisis management centers, up from 85 percent in the spring. In just about all cases, top executives will be taking charge of the centers.

So . . even if all the work was in vain . . just in case . . lets prepare by having a crisis management centre. You never know. Its the responsible thing to do. Someone explain what this means other than that the companies you worry so much about are not only on top of the situation, but are also putting emergency facilities in place on the outside chance that something unexpected occurs.

Im amazed this story even got onto the board. Its so full of good news it almost squeaks. What Im not surprised about is how certain folk decided that it was bad bad very bad and a further indication of the disaster to come.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.

... More than nine out of 10 major corporations (92 percent) will sever ties with non-Year 2000-compliant suppliers of services and products ...

Is this really true ??? Sounds like this will be a corporate decision, or maybe the ties will be sever'd by the failed suppliers, who's taking credit (and why??). I don't understand, my head is spinning, maybe I should hang one leg off the bed......

-- BH (silentvoice@pobox.com), October 06, 1999.

A large power utility I work for has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to be"READY". I had a problem with changing my pass word on my work computer. I have a company 1-888# to call an I.T. to help me solve my problems on the computer. As he was helping me I asked him how we are doing with the Y2K issue. He told me " the new up graded programs, Excel, and Word, are acting like viruses. Files are being deleated, calanders are disapearing, even the color fonts are screwing up""""!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. They have halted all new "improvements"!! He said they will fix the problems now and after they occurre! I AM A BELIEVER NOW!!!!

-- p (PPL@POWER.com), October 06, 1999.

As one of the answers referred to this is not bad news...here's a little clue for you. This nation's industry deals in JIT Freight. Just In Time freight. When I haul a load of steel into a appliance manufacturer they unload it and begin to process it right away into their products. When I haul a load of batteries into GM for the new cars, they are off-loaded and installed on the line right away. Compnaies do not have warehaouses full of supplies to keep going if a link in their supply chain breaks. So, your theory that as long as they are working on it everything will be ok after Jan 1 doesn't work here. An example of this comes from 2 years ago when a small manufacturer of a certain part needed for GM and Ford cars (brake pads) had a strike, the two automakers virtually shut down within 48 hrs. and stayed down until 3 days after the strike. Suppose this same company has a Y2K problem instead of a strike and they take 2-3 weeks to get it repaired. Not only are they not working but now the big 3 automakers aren't either. So, the workers aren't getting paid, they can't make payments, groceries, gas....this snowballs until it affects a rather large segment of the population. But that ok I guess because their working on it.....NOT!!!!!!

-- Greg (skipy@prodigy.net), October 06, 1999.

... More than nine out of 10 major corporations (92 percent) will sever ties with non-Year 2000-compliant suppliers of services and products ... ---Now just how are these "major corporatrions" going to "know" if there suppliers are "non-Year 2000-compliant? Is the supplier going to say 'Gee, we just wanted you to know we're not ready for Y2K, so you'd better scratch us off your list'. Or is the "Major Corporation" going to go to the supplier and tell him, 'Look, we are coming over to your place this afternoon, and we are going to run an end to end test on your company to see if you are compliant or not'. Someone help me out with this one.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), October 06, 1999.