One of the things I find most alarming just 12 short months away from Y2K is something called normal distribution and how it applies to the number of companies involved in Y2K remediation. Now I'm no statistician (and in fact would appreciate any input on this from someone with significant experience in statistics) but like many people I have a basic understanding of the concepts involved.
I will try to keep this as simple as possible. For those unaware, normal distribution refers to a 'bell curve' shape that is seen on an X/Y graph when data values are plotted on the X-axis and the number of data points assuming that value are plotted on the Y-axis. This could be something as simple as test scores where the score is plotted on the X-axis and the number of students receiving that score is plotted on the Y-axis. (Remember 'grading on a curve'?)
The concept is extraordinary important and it shows up everywhere in modern life. It would be impossible to list all the places where this normal distribution shows up but there are countless examples: the age of a human being mapped to the number of humans who are that age, etc. Closely examining the curve of scientific results is frequently used to evaluate the quality of an experiment or study.
As it applies to Y2K remediation, I would like to map the date a company completes its remediation efforts to the number of companies that completed their remediation by that time. The curve will look similar to the following:
|
| * *
# of | * *
companies | * *
& orgs | * *
who | * *
completed | * *
remediation | * *
by that date | * *
| * *
+------------------------------------
date (month and year)
Experience tells me that remediation efforts will have a normal distribution, that is, it will be a bell curve. The curve can be a flattened out (if the standard deviation is high) or a spike (if the standard deviation is low).
So just what does the normal distribution curve look like for Y2K remediation and where are we currently at on the curve? With the huge number of companies, governments and organizations involved in such projects, I would think that if, as the PR statements indicate, 'most projects will make it in time', then there should already be THOUSANDS of such groups claiming to have reached that goal. I've heard maybe (at most) 100 companies make such statements. But thousands of others have simply said 'we're making great progress' or 'we're on track' or similar.
Now I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert when it comes to calculating standard deviations and presenting this is a purely scientific context, but it seems to me that either we are VERY early in the curve (very bad news) or that, for some reason which I'm unable to determine, the vast majority have actually completed remediation (unlikely) or that normal distribution does not apply to Y2K remediation (I think this even more unlikely).
Your thoughts?
-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), January 05, 1999
Answers
Arnie,
What you're describing is an excellent idea. The problem is that
specific information on Y2K is hard to come by. We've been left with
noting which companies have missed their remediation deadlines...
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 05, 1999.
The level of remediation achieved by an organization is not a yes/no
state& this property admits of degrees. The probability of
achieving a level of y2k-readiness sufficient for survival is likely
to be neither normal nor symmetric. It's liable to have a negative
skew (peak is shifted to the right) through 1999 as many systems
achieve y2k-readiness closer toward the finish line. After that is
the corporate die-off. More to the point would be a model of failure
rates for commercial, private, and institutional organizations. This
would be a positive-skewed distribution with the peak shortly after
the rollover and a gradual decline subsequently. Failure curves are
usually modeled with one of the gamma distributions such as the
lognormal probability distribution function. A good book for more
info on this is "Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the
Sciences," by Jay L. Devore.
-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 05, 1999.
Forget all the high fallootin math, the notion that by now we should
have many living examples of Y2K readiness from our banks and
utilities -- especially considering that a number did start quite
early and have been working diligently -- is just plain common
sense!!! The absence of this verifies the awful truth: Y2K cannot
be fixed.
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 05, 1999.
Exerpt from Margaret Wheatley's "Leading Through the Unknowns of
Y2K"
The Nature
of Complex Systems' Failures"
Complex systems failures share a set of distinguishing features:
the longer they unravel, the more extensive their effects
costs always far exceed what has been budgeted for
amelioration
as effects materialize, unknown interdependencies become
visible
the more that problems come into focus, the fuzzier they appear
past experiences with simple systems dont apply
cause and effect are impossible to track
consequently, there is no one to blame
These features describe the most frightening realization about
complex systemic problems: They are inherently uncontrollable. They
cannot be understood sufficiently either before or even while they
are occurring, therefore prediction and control are impossible.
Traditional approaches to management simply dont work.
-- Critt Jarvis (Wilmington, NC) (critt@critt.com), January 05, 1999.
[Click!]
Just turning off the hotlink from the previous poster...
-- Dan (DanTCC@Yahoo.com), January 05, 1999.
Your lack of information doesn't verify anything. Every time some
company says it fixed Y2K, you don't believe them. You claim they
lie because of stock holders. You don't accept the truth and then
say the lack of data implies we won't make it. My company has fixed
Y2K for critical system and we're on track for the rest by June. Do
you believe me? Of course not. I heard my city utilities have
tested and fixed their systems. Do you believe them? Of course
not. Not accepting the data you hear doesn't negate the data. It
only verifies you're an idiot.
I've found the best way to approximate the failure rate is through
the normal distribution. It's actually the binomial (failure or
success) for large n. You can easily find the expected value of X
(failure) assuming completion of remediation.
Troll Maria
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 05, 1999.
But Maria - your own analysis shows the danger of your assumption of "it will all be okay, with only minimal problems."
Let us assume you'r correct: that the distribution is a bell curve. Then the fact that so few are now even able to claim "ready to test" and even less "finished testing" - indicates that we are on the very start of the curve - certainly less than 1-2% complete in any category, perhaps less than 1% in most fields and governments.
So, if now less than 1% are complete, when will the "crest" arrive? Remember, the crest only shows that 50% have completed claimed to finish testing - which indicates that half of all utilities, industries and government services will have disruptive, possible catastrophic, failures, irritations and confusions. Each week delay in the "crest" - which will be impossible to quantify in any real case anyway - after June, indicates that a ever larger number of industries and government agencies will not complete at all until Feb, Mar, Apr, May of 2001 - if at all under service disruptions and emergencies.
And you are forgetting that the crest only represents "claimed" compliance - there will be millions of cases of errors and ommisions - even in the best of cases - where things will fail anyway due to unforseen problems.
Youe complacency is unwarranted by your math.
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 05, 1999.
Bell curves don't apply because we can't evaluate ahead of the fact
(1/1/2000) the degree of misinformation being disseminated nor the
near-total lack of a standard for determining percentages of
compliance, definitions of mission-critical systems, etc. Putting it
more charitably, not even responsible programmers know *for sure* that
compliance is compliance. That is the nature of software fixes.
This cuts both ways. The situation could be better than we think (more
work done but not published or declared due to litigation concerns) or
less.
With non-software dependent systems, one would expect many to reach
compliance all-at-once towards the summer of 99. However, software
projects historically exhibit a different pattern (reference: Yourdon
article on "deja vu").
A more interesing curve (maybe someone could map it) would be the
slippage in declared Y2K schedules (you know: we'll all be compliant
in Dec. 98 and then spend 99 testing) compared with historical
metrics. Capers Jones has done some of this, but not to my knowledge
for the actual, ongoing Y2K "progress" declarations.
Bottom line: huge portions of the world's infrastructure won't be
compliant. This is a done deal and almost not worth discussing. What
we don't know, even now, is whether it will be a 2 or a 9 and we
*can't* know.
We can only control the level of our preparation, with money to spend
being a major but not the only major component.
So, it's not whether the world is Y2K compliant (it won't be by a long
shot), it's, "are you Y2K compliant, ie., ready?" Where are you on
that bell curve?
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 05, 1999.
The problem with using the normal distribution to model remediation
success (or system failure) is that it presumes the amount of effort
being applied and the level of difficulty is constant over time. The
amount of y2k work is only going to increase in 1999 (up to a point)
and the amount of difficulty will go way up post-y2k. However the
curve does resemble a bell in the way it starts out near zero, goes
up, then drops back down. But it's more complex than flipping coins.
-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 05, 1999.
Similar idea brought out some time ago by Michael Hyatt:
http://www.michaelhyatt.com/editorials/bell.htm
-RC
-- Runway Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), January 05, 1999.
Arnie Rimmer wrote:
"I will try to keep this as simple as possible. For those unaware,
normal distribution refers to a 'bell curve' shape that is seen on an
X/Y graph when data values are plotted on the X-axis and the number of
data points assuming that value are plotted on the Y-axis. This could
be something as simple as test scores where the score is plotted on
the X-axis and the number of students receiving that score is plotted
on the Y-axis. (Remember 'grading on a curve'?)"
Yep, I do remember grading on a curve. In that instance, however, the
teacher had hard data in the form of a graded test from each student.
In the case of Y2K, however, I'll bet 99.9 percent of all Y2K
disclosures are filtered through company lawyers. Now, what would the
"grading on a curve" look like if each student had a personal lawyer
to "filter" the data and then hand the "data" (not the tests) in to
the teacher? Hmmmm....
-- Ted Markow (tmarkow@agate.net), January 05, 1999.
Let me rephrase what Jon said, hopefully in terms Jack finds less
intimidating.
(1) Y2k is basically a code-maintenance effort. These efforts are
'complete' only when the code being maintained is retired. Over the
useful life of the code, the number of remaining bugs diminishes,
rapidly at first, then more and more slowly, probably never reaching
zero. I say 'probably' because we can never know if we fixed the last
bug, we can only know how long it's been since we found one. You may
have fixed every last y2k bug (and every error introduced in the
fixing process), but you cannot know this.
(2) On top of this, one of the critical y2k issues involves inter-
computer communications, both within and between organizations. Two
perfectly remediated systems can still fail to communicate properly
due to y2k-related reasons if the remediation techniques used were in
some way incompatible. Which they often are, we know this already.
(3) Furthermore, there always remains the danger of lawsuits.
Companies legitimately worry about being found liable for problems
they in fact didn't cause and had no control over. If y2k lawsuits
succeed, it's also likely that all computer bugs for many years will
be blamed on y2k, whether this is the case or not. In cases of
incompatibility, it may never be clear exactly where to place the
blame. Where there are no standards, there can be no clear violation
of standards.
(4) About the only clear milestone in the process is when remediated
code is returned to production. This is happening worldwide, but it
happens in large numbers of tiny, often unrelated bits and pieces.
And often, the nearest we can estimate the importance of a given
piece isn't really more than just a gut feeling. There are companies
today who have remediated all their code, and are running it on time
machines in parallel with their day-to-day operations. Even they
cannot be sure it will all work correctly when the system of systems
goes live. At that time, horrible things can still happen, and they
know it.
It should be clear that the remediation process can *never* be
'complete' even in theory, and it would be foolish to declare
completion in practice. The whole bell curve argument is irrelevant,
since it assumes there is a point in time, known to the organization,
when 'completion' has been achieved. A false assumption has led to a
useless model of the process.
The best any organization can do is to allocate as many resouces to
the process as they deem reasonable, monitor whatever aspects of the
process they have any way to measure, and hope that they can survive
the direct and indirect predations of the host of residual bugs
guaranteed to strike. In the meantime, the best strategy is to
express official optimism, without making any guarantees. And this is
what's frustrating about the whole issue. What matters isn't whether
someone is 'complete' (which is meaningless), or even if they're
'close' (which is largely undefineable). What matters is the detailed
nature of the actual failures, and we can't know this until they
happen (and we may never know the actual causes of many of these
failures).
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 05, 1999.
Thanks for the effort, Flint, I'm still intimidated, though maybe
someone else got illuminated. Let me try to bring this all down to
earth. Today, on North's website (www.garynorth.com), it was reported
that Wachovia Bank -- which just happens to be my bank
currently (i.e., before I make my complete flight to cash) -- has
revised (for lack of a better word) their stated completion date for
Y2K remediation. Instead of the end of 1998, which they repeatedly
claimed would be met, they now claim it will be "by the end of first
quarter 1999".
We can argue up the ying yang whether or not
certain probability models do or do not apply to Y2K phenomona. Or we
can use common sense. My common sense tells me:
For anyone interested, here is the link
to the North's commentary and link to the Wachovia
website.
Wachovia Y2K
Readiness Revision
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 05, 1999.
from c.s.y2k Paul Milne yesterday:
In article ,
bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> In article <19990104123134.00855.00006874@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
> KJ Ayau wrote:
> >
> >You really are a piece of work, Sherman. After all you tore apart
in the
> >original post, this is all you have to say? I've read your
responses with
>
> Sorry, back at work and don't have as much time as I did the
> last few days , but to make you happy:
>
> It is pretty telling that the an independent Power Plant that
> is *not even working most of the time* is being remediated.
> (Bobbi, when was the last time this vaporous plant ran? What
> is the output of the plant at peak operation?) Very good news.
> We still cannot confirm one single fact of the story, now can we?
>
> Bobbi now admits that the number of people dependent on the
> power plant in question is 0, but refuses to tell us the name
> of the village with a clueless municipal power operation. I
> know the winters in upstate N.Y. (I grew up outside Rochester)
> and it would definitely be a public service to blow the whistle
> on these criminals who scoff at Y2k. If Bobbi would send
> the name of the Municipality to, say, Rick Cowles, or to Y2kWhit,
> or to Paul Milne, they could repost to this newsgroup and we
> could put their feet to the fire and maybe save some lives
> in NY.
>
Never happen. You really are in a dream world aren't you?
What goons like you do not understand is that from this day forward we
would
have to average more than TWENTY Utilities PER DAY announcing
compliance all
the way to Dec 31.
Not gonna happen butthead. Even when those numbers are broken down
for you ,
simply, like that, you still can not deal with them. TWENTY utilities
EVERY
DAY ***MUST*** announce compliance . And each day that Twenty
ulitilties do
not announce compliance we would need forty the next day just to catch
up,
butthead. Just think of this. In the next three days, not ONE utility
will be
announced compliant. That means that JUST TO CATCH UP, we would need A
HUNDRED AND TWENTY to announcee that they were compliant on Friday.
ROTFLMAO.
Now we know that you are very very very bad with numbers in that you
think
that tens and tens and tens of millions of checks could be done
manually each
month.
Try these numbers foolish one. We have over 8000 utilities that need
to be
functioning. More than twenty per DAY must spring up fully remediated
and
tested.
LOL LOL LOL LOL
You are such an asswipe Pee Wee. Not only is it not possible to be
done. It
has always been IMPOSSSIBLE.
> --bks
Soon, very soon, most of the pathetic asswipes will be gone. They did
not
pass the Darwin threshold. They did not prepare. They will be unfit to
survive. They will not survive.
In as much as most of the pollyannas are atheists they will have to
admit
that it is a 'GOOD' thing for the unfit morons to be wiped out by
natural
selection, just as a weak and diseased gazelle is plucked out of the
herd by
the lion.
The less fit inept morons gone, and the more fit prepared ones will
carry on.
In this case preparation is the sole determination of fitness.
I am sure that in their atheism, they will see the benefits and
natural
justice of that.
--
Paul Milne
If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.
For all you smart ass pollyanna, that TWENTY per day. What's that?
None today, or yesterday, or the day before? OH! None yet this year!
OK make that 120 needed tomorrow -- JUST TO STAY ON SCHEDULE. Oh yes
I know, fools like Paul Davis John Howard will tell you
"They will all start finishing any time now" as Milne says, like
mushrooms sprouting afetr a sroing rain.
Get a clue. The power grid is going down.
-- a (a@a.a), January 05, 1999.
a: Now, thats what I call common sense!
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 05, 1999.
Yes, all too true, sad to say.
What 'a' doesn't mention is that about 200 power plans supply about
80% of the power in the US -- the rest are brokers and distributors
for the most part.
'a' also doesn't mention that several of those 200 are already
operating with all dates set past 2000.
'a' also doesn't mention those (like Hilo and Springfield) who have
successfully tested with dates turned ahead.
'a' also doesn't mention utilities (like mine) that have completed
remediation and testing but are prohibited by their lawyers from
saying anything specific for fear of the unknown.
But I guess if you have common sense, you don't need data, nor do you
need to bother mentioning anything nonsensical like critical details.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 05, 1999.
Flint: URLs please.
-- a (a@a.a), January 05, 1999.
BTW you'll find plenty of "critical details" in grid expert Rick
Cowles latest interview:
Cowles interview
and there is plenty of room to argue that even he is way too
optimistic.
-- a (a@a.a), January 05, 1999.
"" Look, what it takes to get
electricity to my house involves all these players, so they all need
to be ready for Y2K. If it turns out that some number do not need to
be, then they (as well as NERC, Rick Cowles, Dick Mills, etc.) should
say so, then we could just worry about the 200 or whatever that we
really depend on.
"'a' also doesn't mention that several of those 200 are already
operating with all dates set past 2000." You can't set dates
forward in embedded chips, which is potentially where a lot of the
risk is. If truly setting dates forward on systems that you could do
so constitutes Y2K readiness, then these utilities should indeed
declare themselves as ready for Y2K. (It doesn't; they
don't.)
"'a' also doesn't mention those (like Hilo and Springfield) who
have successfully tested with dates turned ahead." Same as
preceding.
"'a' also doesn't mention utilities (like mine) that have
completed remediation and testing but are prohibited by their lawyers
from saying anything specific for fear of the unknown." Those
lawyers need to read the "Year 2000 Information and Readiness
Disclosure Act" that was signed into law on 10/19/1998, which allows
disclosure of Y2K status without liability (unless information
provided is knowingly false).
"But I guess if you have common sense, you don't need data, nor
do you need to bother mentioning anything nonsensical like critical
details." Data, details, analyses, etc., have their place, but
so does common sense. Many of the more optimistic Y2K arguments seem
to get lost in the details, but fail to see the big picture. (The
proverbial "Can't see the forest because of the trees.")
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 06, 1999.
What worries me aren't the trees I can see, but the thousands (or millions, or billions) of termites I can't see that might (or might not) be eating some of (all of) those trees....
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 06, 1999.
Here is the most current Y2K statement from one major
generator/supplier of electricity, PECO Energy Co. in Pennsylvania,
taken from thier 10-Q as of Sept. 30, 1998, posted on Nov. 2, 1998.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/78100/0000078100-98-0000
22.txt
I will abstain from any comments, I believe the whole report speaks
for itself. --Chris
YEAR 2000 PROJECT
The Company's Year 2000 Project (Project) is proceeding on
schedule.
The Project is addressing the issue resulting from computer programs
using two
digits rather than four to define the applicable year and other
programming
techniques that constrain date calculations or assign special
meanings to
certain dates (Y2K Issue). Any of the Company's computer systems
that have
date-sensitive software or microprocessors may recognize a date
using "00" as
the year 1900 rather than the year 2000. This could result in a
system failure
or miscalculations causing disruptions of operations, including,
among other
things, a temporary inability to process transactions, send
bills, operate
generation stations, or engage in similar normal business activities.
The Company has determined that it will be required to
modify or
replace significant portions of its software and embedded technology
so that its
computer systems will properly utilize dates beyond December 31,
1999. The
Company presently believes that with modifications to existing
software,
conversions to new software, and replacement of embedded technology,
the effect
of the Y2K Issue on the Company can be mitigated. If such
modifications and
conversions are not made, or are not completed in a timely manner, the
Y2K Issue
could have a material impact on the operations and financial
condition of the
Company. The costs associated with this potential impact are
speculative and not
presently quantifiable.
The Company is utilizing both internal and external
resources to
reprogram, or replace, and test software and computer systems for
the Project.
The Project is scheduled for completion by June 1, 1999,
except for
modifications, conversions or replacements that are being
incorporated into
scheduled plant outages between June and December 1999.
The Project
The Project is divided into four major sections -
Information
Technology Systems (IT Systems), Embedded Technology (devices used
to control,
monitor or assist the operation of equipment, machinery or plant),
Supply Chain
(third-party suppliers and customers), and Contingency Planning.
The general
phases common to all sections are: (1) inventorying Year 2000
items; (2)
assigning priorities to identified items; (3) assessing the Year 2000
readiness
of items determined to be material to the Company; (4) converting
material items
that are determined not to be Year 2000 ready; (5) testing material
items; and
(6) designing and implementing contingency plans for each
critical Company
process. Material items are those believed by the Company to
have a risk
involving the safety of individuals, may cause damage to
property or the
environment, or affect revenues.
The IT Systems section includes both the conversion of
applications
software that is not Year 2000 ready and the replacement of
software when
available from the supplier. The Company estimates that the software
conversion
phase was approximately 48% complete at September 30, 1998, and the
remaining
conversions are on schedule to be tested and completed by June 1,
1999. The
Company estimates that replacements and upgrades will be completed
on schedule
by June 1, 1999, although some vendor software replacements and
upgrades are
behind schedule. Contingency planning for IT Systems is
scheduled to be
completed by June 1, 1999. The Project has identified 343 critical
IT Systems.
The current readiness status of those systems is set forth below:
Number of Systems Progress Status
- -----------------
-------------------------------------------------
26 Systems Year 2000 Ready
87 Systems In Testing
191 Systems In Active Code Modification, Or Package
Upgrading
39 Systems Scheduled to Start after September 30, 1998
The Embedded Technology section consists of hardware
and systems
software other than IT Systems. The Company estimates that the
Embedded
Technology section was approximately 61% complete at September 30,
1998, and the
remaining conversions are on schedule to be tested and completed
by June 1,
1999. Contingency planning for Embedded Technology is scheduled to be
completed
by June 1, 1999. The Project has identified 119 critical Embedded
Technology
systems. The current readiness status of those systems is set forth
below:
Number of Systems Progress Status
- ----------------- -------------------
25 Systems Year 2000 Ready
94 Systems In Active Upgrading
The Supply Chain section includes the process of
identifying and
prioritizing critical suppliers and critical customers with common
equipment at
the direct interface level, and communicating with them about their
plans and
progress in addressing the Y2K Issue. The Company
initiated formal
communications with all of its critical suppliers and critical
customers to
determine the extent to which the Company may be vulnerable to their
Year 2000
issues. The process of evaluating these critical suppliers and
critical
customers has commenced and is scheduled to be completed by June 1,
1999.
Costs
The estimated total cost of the Project is $75.4 million,
the majority
of which will be incurred during testing. This estimate includes the
Company's
share of Year 2000 costs for jointly owned facilities. The total
amount expended
on the Project through September 30, 1998 was $7.3 million. The
Company expects
to fund the Project from operating cash flows. The Company's
current cost
estimate for the Project is set forth below:
$ Millions
1998 1999 2000
Total
----- ----- -----
-----
O&M 22.3 37.5 9.3
69.1
Capital 1.4 4.9 -
6.3
----- ----- -----
-----
Total 23.7 42.4 9.3
75.4
Risks
The Company's failure to become Year 2000 ready could
result in an
interruption in or a failure of certain normal business
activities or
operations. In addition, there can be no assurance that the
systems of other
companies on which the Company's systems rely or with which they
communicate
will be timely converted, or that a failure to convert by another
company, or a
conversion that is incompatible with the Company's systems, will
not have a
material adverse effect on the Company. Such failures could
materially and
adversely affect the Company's results of operations, liquidity and
financial
condition. The Company is currently developing contingency plans to
address how
to respond to events that may disrupt normal operations including
activities
with PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
The costs of the Project and the date on which the Company
plans to
complete the Year 2000 modifications are based on estimates, which
were derived
utilizing numerous assumptions of future events including the
continued
availability of certain resources, third-party modification plans
and other
factors. However, there can be no assurance that these
estimates will be
achieved. Actual results could differ materially from the projections.
Specific
factors that might cause a material change include, but are not
limited to, the
availability and cost of personnel trained in this area, the ability
to locate
and correct all relevant computer programs and microprocessors,
and similar
uncertainties.
The Project is expected to significantly reduce the
Company's level of
uncertainty about the Y2K Issue. The Company believes that the
completion of the
Project as scheduled reduces the possibility of significant
interruptions of
normal operations.
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 06, 1999.
Chris, for what it is worth, last Oct 1, I attended a seminar
sponsored by George Washington University in D.C. (at the Washington
Post building): "Potential Impacts of Year 2000 Technology Proglems
on the Electric Power Grid". Ken Cohn, General Manager, Computer
Services, PEPCO, was one of the presenters. Needless to say, the
picture that he presented seemed much more positive to say the least!
Additionally, he also said that PEPCO was in the process of
stockpiling three (3) months worth of coal by 1/1/2000.
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 06, 1999.
Jack, do you mean PECO or PEPCO? Are we talking the same company? I
wouldn't be surprised that PECO's representative would have painted a
much rosier picture live and in public. I suspect Joe Public doesn't
read 10-Q's, it's not an information easy to find, and the Y2K report
is tucked in at the very end of a long boring report.
Oh shucks, I can't help it, I have to comment on the report.
- Out of 343 CRITICAL IT systems, 26 were ready Sept. 30. That leaves
the rest to start working on/modify/test before the deadline of June
1, 1999, 8 months away. NOWAY!
- Out of 119 CRITICAL embedded systems, 25 ready as of Sept. 30. That
leaves 94 to find/fix/replace/get-replacements-from-iffy-supliers in 8
months. NOWAY!
- Out of (optimistic for stock holder's sake?) ESTIMATED $75.4 million
total y2k budget, only $7.3 million spent as of Sept. 30. What?, throw
the rest at the fixing crew in 8 months and it will be ok? Throw 10
times that money and they will work better and faster? Employ 10 times
more fixers out of... thin air? From other electric companies? Give
them the whole 15 months till Dec. 31?...still NOWAY!!
Flint....I'm begging you...debunk me on this, it's MY electric
company!
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 06, 1999.
Chris, my mistake, big time, sorry. Thanks for catching it!
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 06, 1999.
chris: Good post. I think Flint is in the huddle with Paul Davis and
John Howard right now, thinking of ways to put positive spin on your
dismal news.
Unfortunately, these guys pure pollyana crap will be diminishing
sharply very soon now.
-- a (a@a.a), January 06, 1999.
Chris, I'd love to help but that 10Q sounds just awful. 343 critical
systems seems a large number, but hey, if they say they're critical,
who am I to disagree. It sure sounds like they have no hope of
finishing or even coming close in the time left.
Also, it isn't clear if those 119 embedded systems represent the
total, or just the total with known y2k issues. In either case, they
have their work cut out, and moreso.
In your position, I'd give very serious thought to relocating.
Failing that, I hope you have a good wood stove and lots of candles
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 06, 1999.
Back to my real point for just a moment... Let's put the math aside. I
would contend that no matter how you slice it (you say compliance, I
say continuity, you say finished, I say done...), that a great many
companies should have announced their readiness by this time. At a
great many companies, world-wide, the Y2K staff should be wrapping
things up, sweeping the floor and locking the door on their way out.
Projects should be winding down. Programmers should be getting
reassigned to other duties and contract workers should be seeking new
clients.
The company PR and marketing staffs should be having a field day with
the successful completion of the project ("XYZ Corp! We came, we saw,
we acted! We're miles ahead of our competition. No need to worry about
your widgits - they're safe today and safe tomorrow with XYZ Corp.
Gosh, Bob maybe we should move our widgits to XYZ - they're great! XYZ
- we take a ticking and keep on clicking. Tomorrow is here today at
XYZ. At XYZ we do our homework, because tomorrow is sooner than you
think. )
Admittedly, there are a few like this scattered here and there but
nowhere the number there should be at this point in time. Instead, we
see thousands upon thousands of statements say "XYZ will be there,
everything is OK, we're really working hard, no we're not finished yet
but we're on schedule and making significant progress and have full
confidence we'll be here tomorrow. Our vendors? Sure that could be a
problem but we're really confident, really, really confident."
No, sorry. You must look closer. What we see is the National Credit
Union Association (NCUA) claiming that they, as a group, are Y2K-ready
on the one hand and on the other hand they are moving to block release
of their members' Y2K status information under the Freedom of
Information Act. ("Sure! We're ready, we just can't show you the hard
exculpatory evidence. But trust us, it's there. Really, it is.")
We see banks quietly changing their web site to reflect a brand new
"we'll be done real soon now" date. "December 31, 1998? I don't
remember seeing that anywhere. Are you certain you saw that on our web
site? Hmmm. Must have been a typo because we'll right on schedule.
Making great progress. Leaps and bounds. Really. Yep, just spoke with
John in IS and that December date was an unfortunate typo. Fixed it
now though! You see! No need to worry. We're all over this."
Suspicious? Yes, I'm suspicious. And for several very good reasons.
First and foremost is my experience as a programmer. I see 3-minute
omlets being promised in 17 seconds. There are other, more personal
experiences as well. My sister-in-law sat on a federal grand jury for
18 months investigating the savings & loan fraud that resulted in one
of largest thefts of money ever from the American people (I think we
called it a baleout). I'm not so naive as to believe that something
just as big if not bigger couldn't possibly happen again. When you
bail someone out of trouble, you frequently just delay the inevitable.
Bottom line: Trust and respect is something that is earned. It should
never be afforded to someone because of their title, name, money,
social class or position in life. Trust is earned...and so is
mis-trust.
If it turns out that large numbers of business have indeed lied and
falsified their Y2K status, then mistrust has been duly earned and the
consequences must be accepted by those who committed the deed. There
should be no bailout. Not this time.
-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), January 06, 1999.
You know what's scarier Flint? That electric company is huge with many
million customers, and has several nuclear plants. And if they go
down, what of the others in the grid?
You bet I've got my y2k retreat and plenty of candles and beans here
too.
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 06, 1999.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ