Before we shatter the pollyanna myth, first, the GI mea culpa, though I was only guilty personally of the first of these missed predictions.

1. Y2K panic will begin by late 1998. Wrong.

Too much inside baseball on my part. Just because Y2K scared the dickens out of me and I was determined to prepare didn't mean the rest of the world was going to catch on terribly soon. As I recall, Yourdon's book predicted high levels of panic by YE98 as well. As did many of us. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

2. The euro will crash and burn in January of 1999 and JAE errors will take Y2K above the noise level. Again, wrong, though very few GIs actually held forth in this way and the jury is still out on JAE. But, hey, let's call that wrong as of today. IMO, there will be further egg on GI faces for most of this year, as mgmt and IT labor together to "fix" problems by slapping 12/31/99 on the computations and performing other silly pet tricks.

Now, to the myth that somehow GIs have been essentially wrong on predicting Y2K. The opposite is the case. The predictive record is horribly accurate. Let's get to the bottom line:

Yourdon, North, Yardeni, Martin, Cowles, Mile and, yeah, weirdly enough, de Jager, long predicted that the best indicators of eventual Y2K failure ahead of the 1/1/2000 fact would be:

a) Slipped schedules

b) Expanding budgets

c) Elimination of mission-critical systems (scope reduction)

d) Punting on the testing of embedded systems

e) Cooked or meaningless compliance percentages

f) Reduction or elimination of acceptance test

g) Substitution of Y2K "ready" or its equivalent for "compliant"

Not everyone of these observers predicted each of these, but taken as a group, they made the entire set of predictions, most in 1997, all by summer of 1998.

Obviously, we don't yet know how well these predictions, which are already fulfilled, will map to eventual failures. But it is intellectually dishonest for pollyannas to overlook the enormously substantive prescience of those who have been tracking Y2K from the beginning. Why? Because .... POLLYANNAS RIDICULED THESE PREDICTIONS WHEN THEY WERE MADE AS INSANE. And it is foolish in the extreme to believe that there will be no substantive mapping between these predictions and the final outcome. The blunt fact is that the world as a whole has decided to treat Y2K as fix on failure. In that sense, the pollyannas have won the Y2K debate of 1996-1998 by their insistence that Y2K is trivial. Even GIs don't understand the seriousness of that. The debate is over. It's too late for the world to fix Y2K. But, sadly, this will be a Pyrrhic pollyanna victory with great financial cost (at a minimum) and personal cost (at a likely maximum) to the entire world. This is why some of us are so intense about forcing pollyannas to understand their folly. The lame idea that the future impact of Y2K can be mocked by fixing on a few GIs who got date crazy is one of the most foolish pollyanna myths. Let's drop it and come up with something fresh, pollys.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 03, 1999

Answers

Very well said Big D. The JAE effect is real, but will be largely hidden until at least the end of the first quarter. And I doubt any real public news will occur until July. You might keep in mind that Jo Anne has stated her version of Rollover destruction is a slow motion collapse taking place for months after 1/1/2000. (Don't undo your preps on Jan 2, 2000 if the lights don't go out!)

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), February 03, 1999.

Bravo! And I apologize for my extended vacation from this forum. Without question, as I have travelled extensively over the last 4 months, this and other nations are woefully unprepared for Y2K. I have been in offices of major medical and pharmaceutical companies as well as IT departments from Texas to NJ and amazingly, they are still taking inventory of some of the systems and equipment being used. Not that this will have a major impact, of course (chortle). I have been in the offices of multimillion logistics companies where 386 pcs are still front line equipment. When I asked when the replacements might be coming in, the answer was "Why? This unit functions perfectly." In other countries it's even worse. AS USUAL a large amount of money is being spent on front line systems such as order processing and finance departments. BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE IF THE PRODUCT CAN NOT GET TO MARKET???? Inventory control systems are woefully behind, many of the systems that I have witnessed are seven years old! And the concept of imbedded chips has yet to hit any of these so called IT experts. I queried one of the IT gurus at a large medical device company about this issue and he said "legal" is handling this issue. My advice: Duck and Cover. I think the first quarter of 2000 will be on manual systems, and sadly this will trip devasting economic consequences NOT so much from our devasted distribution network BUT more from the sudden lack of imports to supply our markets. Then and only then will we realize the true impact of the Asia fiasco. I'm back on the road again, good luck to everyone and I'll duck in and out as time (remaining) permits. John Galt

-- John Galt (jgaltfla@hotmail.com), February 03, 1999.

Worse -

The seeds are now being sown to directly blame the coming (potential) Y2K failures on those who have prepared - the cry now in the mass media is about the threat from hoarding and bank runs CAUSED by the ones who have prepared for trouble.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 03, 1999.

Too funny/too true. A lot of people are familiar with the fable of the ant and the grasshopper. Here is a synopsis if you were a deprived child and never heard this story:

"The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold."

However, this is the "old fashioned" tale of the ant and the grasshopper. Here is the Modern American Version of...

// The Ant and the Grasshopper //

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering Grasshopper next to video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be that, in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Then a representative of the NAGB (National Association of Green Bugs) shows up on Nightline and charges the ant with "green bias," and makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of "greenism." Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when he sings "It's not easy being green."

Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS Evening News to tell a concerned Dan Rather that they will do everything they can for the Grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the Reagan summers. Richard Gephardt exclaims in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share." Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in defamation suit against the ant. The case is tried before a panel of Federal Hearing Officers that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare moms who can only hear cases on Thursday's between 1:30 and 3 PM. The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV, which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, they are showing Bill Clinton standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "fairness" has dawned in America.

-- Taz Richardson (Tassie@aol.com), February 03, 1999.

Expect pointed fingers and you won't be surprised by them.

On the other hand, there is a strong undercurrent, almost like a rip-tide, of people preparing. Many can see the handwriting on their own walls, others are still staring at them.

Perhaps what many of the Y2K experts didn't plan on, was the massive cover-up campaign from business, industry, government and plain 'ole ignorance. So expect the band to play on.

Local level preparations are what will "mitigate" potential local disasters, but not eliminate them, sad to say. Where each person can make a difference is "at home." However big that is. Sometimes it's a structure, sometimes a planet.

Diane

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 03, 1999.

BigDog,

Very well stated! As I've been saying a lot on this forum lately...

...whatever happens to banks and the financial world in 1999 is a fait accompli, based on decisions made (or not made) in 1996 and 1997.

Trying to convince the general public not to prepare for Y2K would only change the timing of what's going to happen in 1999--not stop it.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 03, 1999.

Provacative post, Big Dog. In their simplicity, those seven indicators speak volumes about the future. And they are more telling, I think, than 1-1-99 rollover, early JAE and the Euro. Pyrric, indeed.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 03, 1999.

"Go to the ant, thou sluggard, consider her ways and be wise"

-- Proverbs (nevermind@noneofyour.beeswax), February 03, 1999.

Hello my name is Deborah and I am a hoarder...oh I'm sorry I thought this was thi H.A. meeting, it must be the next thread....:-)

Russia 1921 Civil War Famine No Fuel No Trains

"Who was to blame? That was a famous question: WHO IS TO BLAME?

Well, obviously, NOT the Over-All Leadership. And not even the local leadership. That was important. "

The Communist leaders blamed the spetsy (engineers). Engineers that had obeyed telophonograms from Rykov and the Government not to issue extra fuel.

They (spetsy) all went to prison.

The people (literally) ate their own children.

The Commies kept on ticking, and killing & imprisoning.

Oh well, that's pretty depressing. I guess my point was that as I read this earlier it reminded me of the evil hoarders, and then I saw this thread. So, I was compelled to add it. The quotes are taken from "The Gulag Archipelago" By: Aleksandr I.Solzhenitsyn. I translated the rest of it because good old Alek is wordy (understatement).

--------------------------

Taz,

The Ant & the Grasshopper was great! LOL although a little too close to home. Surreal.

Deborah

-- Deborah (salvador@dali.melting), February 03, 1999.

BigDog:

Excellent analysis!! If you have not already done so PLEASE post this to comp.software.year-2000.

Bob

-- Bob Benson (appysys@inreach.com), February 03, 1999.

Brilliant, Perro Grande, however, computer science, for 40 years and even at its best, and even as we speak... is actually nothing BUT - silly pet tricks.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 03, 1999.

# # # 19990203

BD: Ditto and well said!!

I saw and heard nothing but excusers {sic} and DHs in chorus from corporate moronic minions I suffered under/through four, major scale, IT Y2K projects from February 1997-December 1999. It was all a good, conscientious person of 33 years experience could stand.

Internal cover-ups and public denials within corporate walls had become daily routine. Pollyannas have never seen--and probably never will see--through the Y2K rose colored glasses.

I shall not accept the wrath of the Y2K know-nothing's without making an honorable and forceful stand--this time!

Self-retirement was the only honorable and timely option open for me. I did it! Some retirement! Ha! I've been working my a** off in massive preparations for my immediate ( as in marriage--luck me!-- GI ) family ever since my 401(k) came through!

My mortgage is good through 12/1999 and no credit cards. I and mine are preparing for off-grid, off-bank, off-supermarket, and off-line life. If T-Y2K-S-doesn't-HTF as bad as expected, I'll parachute back with a vengeance!

I am sleeping better at nights, with only sporadic ( for now ) nightmares of heroically fending of pre/post-Y2K wrath of roving mobs of the unprepared DGIs and DWGI's. ( Shades of my post-Vietnam PTSD experiences. )

Thank you for your observations, BD!

Regards, Bob Mangus # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), February 03, 1999.

By God Taz , Thats it in a nutshell ! Great story .

Debra lol I'm A hoarder also .. now where was that next thread ?

:o)

-- Mike (mickle2@aol.com), February 04, 1999.

Just ran across this. The last sentence of the first paragraph says a mouthful. Thursday February 4, 5:03 am Eastern Time Company Press Release SOURCE: Y2KSAFE, Inc. Companies Starting to Factor Customers Into Y2K Plans DENVER, Feb. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- A bank in Denver spends $10 million to fix its Information Technology systems. A department store chain in Cincinnati budgets $50 million for the same purpose, while the combined expense for the world's airlines will top $2.3 billion. And all this money will be gone before a single customer is informed that these businesses are Y2K compliant.

Companies Starting to Factor Customers Into Y2K Plans

-- Other Lisa (LisaWard2@aol.com), February 04, 1999.

Big Dog: right again. Taz: Wow! Awesome, and eerily prophetic, I'd bet. I'd add--don't underestimate the ability of the lapdog press to keep a lid on computer failure stories, once the editors get the word. There will be an increase in anecdotal stories told person to person about system failures, but our beloved free press (free, as A.J. Liebling said, to those who own one) will maintain a studied silence until...PING! Then our most beloved leader will bite his lower lip, smile bravely, and announce the temporary suspension of the Constitution while we "address this grave national crisis. But the American people are a can-do people, and with your help, I know we can work to correct the problems before us, and make the new millenium a bright one for our children, and our children's children.)

-- Spidey (in@ajam.com), February 04, 1999.

OK BigDog - lets look at what you are saying here. Any prediction made by a good doom lover is valid until it fails - then poof! we should ignore the fact that it failed. After all - no one really subscribed to it. And any prediction that comes true, even in a very minor way - or that may be utterly unimportant - is to be taken as gospel proving TEOTW is nigh.

And your "FACTS" are pretty bad. Expanding budgets and slipped schedules - have I ever said THAT would not happen? Who, with any knowledge of software development, would have said that? They have held the line much better than I ever expected.

Scope reduction -? If I am not on the project, how on earth can I determine what is a critical system and what is not? If your crystal ball is so good, why not just let us know where we will be in a year! And I certainly haven't tried to rule out anyone changing their minds about the order of importance of one system over another to the company in question.

Punting on the embedded systems - here you may have something. The problem of embedded systems has gotten very small, as real information replaces theory and guesswork. Small enough that some may well decide to simply wait to see what fails and fix on failure.

e, f, and g - all reflect a fact. This fact is that Y2K problems are not simple it works or it doesn't type problems. Suppose a power plant control panel starts reporting dates in the 1980's. Nothing else happens as a result of this - just the monitor shows the wrong date. Is it Y2K compliant? NO - absolutely not. Is it Y2K ready - meaning "will it hamper operation in a signifigant way"? Yes. Because of this - most percentages are just guesses as to what will happen - by the guy who knows most about the problem. Reduction of testing happens for the same reason - most of the tests did not mean much.

The actual facts of Y2K will come out after 1/1/2000 - not before. And I expect to be here after 1/1/2000. Which brings up an important point - what preparations have you made for 2000 - assuming Y2K is not the ultimate disaster? Do you have a job, are you planning to quit? Have you planned to give up a house or move to the country? Think hard about such decisions - unless you have other reasons for doing this, you will very likely be regretting them long before the end of next year.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), February 04, 1999.

[my comments here]

OK BigDog - lets look at what you are saying here. Any prediction made by a good doom lover is valid until it fails - then poof! we should ignore the fact that it failed.

[I cited two that could be viewed as failures, Paul. Why the gripe?]

After all - no one really subscribed to it.

[No, I said that I didn't subscribe to the early critical dates predictions nor do most GIs that I know. But I put that in here because I do feel bound to share, as it were, responsibility with like-minded people for mistaken or perhaps just premature predictions]

And any prediction that comes true, even in a very minor way - or that may be utterly unimportant - is to be taken as gospel proving TEOTW is nigh.

[Of course not. And you know very well that this NG makes careful distinctions between TEOTW and TEOTWAWKI.]

And your "FACTS" are pretty bad. Expanding budgets and slipped schedules - have I ever said THAT would not happen? Who, with any knowledge of software development, would have said that? They have held the line much better than I ever expected.

[I wasn't aiming this thread at you particularly, Paul. And your question about those with knowledge of software development is, ironically, well-taken. Unfortunately, many, even so-called IT experts, did disagree with these predictions at the time, heatedly. Don't you recall the endless articles about how Y2K was a trivial problem unlike real IT work?

Though only partly germane here, the original Gartner group estimates were laughed out of court and it was considered a no-brainer that the 12/31/98 compliance-then-test dates would be met nearly universally. I'm not focusing on how stupid most people were, but that the predictions cited in this thread were derided at the time by pollyannas. I've been trashing de Jager freely the last few days, but ask him what the pollyannas were saying about these predictions at that time.

Scope reduction -? If I am not on the project, how on earth can I determine what is a critical system and what is not? If your crystal ball is so good, why not just let us know where we will be in a year! And I certainly haven't tried to rule out anyone changing their minds about the order of importance of one system over another to the company in question.

[IT quantitative research over many years suggests strongly that scope reduction is a bad sign for project completion and quality. Not always, but usually. When one sees the fact of scope reduction being applied almost universally (rather than intermittently), it is a legitimate deduction that bad things are happening to the overall effort. Of course I can't judge whether any particular reassignment is correct or not. But should we also avoid making sensible deductions based on the evidence, Paul? This prediction's importance stands.]

Punting on the embedded systems - here you may have something. The problem of embedded systems has gotten very small, as real information replaces theory and guesswork. Small enough that some may well decide to simply wait to see what fails and fix on failure.

[Let's not get into another debate about the number of such systems. Hope you're right about the size of the problem's consequences, but there is precious little real, authenticated information and much of it is contradictory. Generally, it's wise to be cautious in the face of contradictory data, especially when the stakes are so high. Most companies are waiting to fix on failure because it's too expensive (they feel) to test, not because the problem's exposure is reduced. Claiming that this prediction by Y2K alarmists was trivial is plain wrong.]

e, f, and g - all reflect a fact. This fact is that Y2K problems are not simple it works or it doesn't type problems. Suppose a power plant control panel starts reporting dates in the 1980's. Nothing else happens as a result of this - just the monitor shows the wrong date. Is it Y2K compliant? NO - absolutely not. Is it Y2K ready - meaning "will it hamper operation in a signifigant way"? Yes. Because of this - most percentages are just guesses as to what will happen - by the guy who knows most about the problem.

[No, they are guesses because IT by and large is not funded or expected to rigorously inspect or audit its work. Period. And that, BTW, has nothing to do with Y2K but long predates it. Unfortunately, it has a lot to do with estimates of progress on Y2K, which are meaningless and are swallowed whole as good news by the media and pollyannas. But even if you were right, you confirm the problem: compliance percentages are guesses, and the quality of those guesses is no better than the skill and experience of the people making them. Which is why software engineering and management is an oxymoron.]

Reduction of testing happens for the same reason - most of the tests did not mean much.

[This is breaktakingly wrong on all counts. In a situation where internal and external interfaces everywhere will probably be the ballgame (ie, not standalone execution of systems or applications), the reduction or elimination of testing is probably the reason why Y2K is going to be a disaster. And (listen up, dear reader), when you hear Paul, you are hearing how most IT people in 1999 plan to treat testing: "it does not mean much." ROTFLMAO. And weeping.]

The actual facts of Y2K will come out after 1/1/2000 - not before.

[Wrong again. The only facts about Y2K are the ones in front of us today and they are terrible. BTW, they are not necessarily more terrible than the usual ones about IT (see Yourdon's Deja Vu article), but we couldn't afford the luxury this time around. By definition, we have no facts about March, 1999 or 1/1/2000.]

And I expect to be here after 1/1/2000.

[So do I. Point?]

Which brings up an important point - what preparations have you made for 2000 - assuming Y2K is not the ultimate disaster? Do you have a job, are you planning to quit? Have you planned to give up a house or move to the country?

[Strawmen again, Paul. I do predict a depression as a result of Y2K (we'll see, won't we?), but a depression is not some "ultimate disaster". I don't wish to go into overmuch detail personally, but I run a small start-up software company at this time. Don't know whether it will cross the date barrier or not, though I'm hopeful, but I expect computer skills to be in huge demand post-Y2K (heck, post-TEOTWAWKI, should it happen). If not, so be it.

We already live in the country, raise food, chickens, geese, turkeys and help my mother-in-law with her dairy farm. We have stored enough hybrid as well as open-pollinated seeds to help a number of the farms here, should the need arise. My wife is a certified nurse-midwife who donates much of her time to rural folk throughout the county. I have donated a Y2K column to the county newspaper and am active in area churches helping people to prepare.

We have prepared to live indefinitely without electricity, although I do not foresee the likelihood of that happening. Obviously, this includes a variety of back-up systems, etc.

I'm still waiting for your point: what does any of this have to do with the thread?]

Think hard about such decisions - unless you have other reasons for doing this, you will very likely be regretting them long before the end of next year.

[Oh, here it is. Paul, what I regret is that pollyannas have treated Y2K like a joke from 1975 until today, thus forcing me to make large investments that I might not have made otherwise. I regret the fact that the utility industry is too arrogant to treat its customers with respect (see Rick Cowles, a very polite man, on this: those are his words), thus leaving them with utterly unpalatable decisions that won't wait. And I regret the fact that the fear of litigation is making cowards of some otherwise honorable people.

I deeply thank people like Yourdon, Yardeni, Cowles, Martin, Hamasaki, Milne and others who helped me understand what was at stake so that I could do my own research and make up my own mind.

Paul, if Y2K is a bump in the road, I will be ecstatic. Not only will I not regret the preparations (it's only money), I will leap up and down publicly and privately. If you want to be the one who says they were right all along, cool.

But, you know something, Paul, that last statement won't be correct. You've been wrong all along about the process and about the still-existent peril of the consequences to your neighbors and fellow-citizens, based on today's facts.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 04, 1999.

I am sure that the experts that predicted such a reaction by late 98 did not: 1. Figure in the massive disinformation campaign by our govt. 2. Realize that people would cling to anything not to have to accept the facts. 3. Underestimated the "nothing can close me down" reaction of Sr. Management

-- Steve Watson (swatson1@gte.net), February 04, 1999.

Kudos BigDog!

How about a new acronym to substitute weeping in there: "ROTFWMAO" ?

-- Grrr (grrr@grrr.net), February 04, 1999.