from c.s.y2k today:

On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 19:31:40 GMT, bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:



>Fess up, Info.



Only to timing, not to basic principles.



>Another notable Infomatic article from September 1998:
>| Assuming just a "recession" this fall, rather than the depression I am
>| expecting, the public failure of _any_ unemployment systems would be a
>| major wake-up call for the sheeple.  It could well be the trigger for
>| the panic and the beginning of the downward spiral . . .
>| 
>| January 1999 _is_ extremely significant.



>And another:
>| I expect a full scale global depression before the end of this year as
>| Japan, South America and the derivatives and stock markets finally
>| tank completely.  In January 1999, the first major Y2K failures will
>| cause noticeable actual business failures and will trigger genuine
>| public awareness of the "possibility" of major problems in 2000
>| itself.  Just to be on the safe side, enough people will empty their
>| bank accounts leading to a complete collapse of the banking system
>| around March 1999, further deepening the global depression.  The
>| problems will be exacerbated by "government help".
>|
>(http://x7.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=qs]/getdoc.xp?AN=394776966&CONTEXT=923339615.1480523865&hitnum=46)



I _did_ expect the beginning of the economic collapse, even in the US,
by the end of last year and I'm genuinely sorry it didn't happen  --
not because I _want_ it to happen, but because the later it happens,
the closer to Y2K itself, the worse the results will be.



The fundamentals driving the global economy towards disaster have
changed for the worse, not for the better, and collapse is _still_
inevitable.  The higher the stock market goes, the farther it will
eventually fall and the more of their savings investors will lose.



What I underestimated was the human capacity for stupidity and greed
and the insane lust for power among our illustrious leaders.  The
fundamentals are _clearly_ worse than 1929, many of the world's
economies are already in depression, and we have a very real Y2K
problem that is _not_ being fixed.  We also have an almost daily
escalation of military conflicts and an increasing likelihood of a
major war.



But, with few exceptions, nobody seems to care.  It's just like the
TailGate scandal  --  nobody seems to care that the president of the
most powerful nation on earth is a repeat-offender felon -- just as
long as their paychecks keep coming, and prices stay low, and the
mediots,  pollyannas, shills and spinmeisters keep telling them
everything is just fine.  I think God really has sent them the
delusion alluded to in my sig (which is why I changed it).



But the delusion is not reality.  The systems really are going to
fail, the economy really is going to collapse.  I used to think that
most people would be intelligent enough to eventually realize this and
to at least make some preparations for their own survival.



But not any more.  I think the delusion will be maintained (or even
increased) until the very end.  Because of this, very, very, few
people will be prepared and the death toll will be even higher than I
previously thought.



I'll expand on these thoughts (and others) in my next major article.



>And from October 1998:
>| No, the key industry is finance, and that will be the first to go.
>| Even though banking really _is_ ahead of the pack it is still so far
>| behind that significant failures _will_ occur starting next January.
>| This will "prove" to an increasingly nervous public that they cannot
>| trust their banks and the bank runs will start.



Banking and finance _will_ go first.  The later that happens the worse
it will be.



=====================================
y 2 0 0 0 @ i n f o m a g i c . c o m
=====================================



For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they
will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have
not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.



(2Th 2:11-12)

-- a (a@a.a), April 06, 1999

Answers

Mr. Decker,

I'm curious to know your response to the basic "deja vu" argument that I've been making for the last couple of years ...

to wit: yes, Y2K is a business problem, but it sits on top of a computer technology problem. Presumably, the reason that ANY computer systems and computer technology have been developed and exploited by private-sector companies and major government agencies for the past 30 years has to been to solve, or exploit, or address a business problem. Aside from pure research in universities, nobody pays us computer geeks to write computer programs just to have fun -- they employ us to develop computer programs for some business reason. That being the case, one has to assume that businesses have always been moderately interested in having their computer projects developed on time, within budget, and with a manageable number of bugs.

The notion that businesses will solve the Y2K problem because it's in their best interest to do so rests upon the assumption that they're capable of doing so. But those of us who work in the trenches of the computer field have seen far too many situations where things just didn't work out that way. Consider, for example, Microsoft -- arguably the most successful high-tech, computer-savvy company on earth. Its Windows 2000 project (formerly NT 5.0) is about two years late; Windows 98 was a year or two late; Windows 95 was two years late. Do they have stupid employees? Do they have stupid managers? Are they a totally incompetent company? No -- they're simply coping, as best they can, with the fundamental reality that large, complex computer systems (NT 5.0 has something like 31 million lines of code) are very difficult to schedule, plan, cost-estimate, and implement successfully.

Indeed, we've got extensive data from the past 30 years of software projects to tell us what the outcomes are. We knew the data even before people paid attention to Y2K; I've discussed it at length in one of my essays, Y2K Projects: Deja Vu All Over Again. Bottom line: ignoring the problem of cost over-runs, it turns out that approx 55% of all software projects are delivered on time or ahead of schedule; approx 15% are delivered late, by an average of 7.65 months; and approx 30% are cancelled before completion.

If the Y2K problem involved just one computer project, or one company, or one industry, or even one country, then I could sympathize with the "Hollywood miracle" theory that provides a silver-bullet cure at the end. But when we're dealing with large numbers -- e.g., 11,000 banks, or 7,300 utility companies, or 60,000 water authorities, etc. -- I don't understand how we can expect the behavior of the very same software programmers and software managers to change substantially from their behavior over the past 30 years.

Sure, it's reasonably to expect that 60% of the Fortune-500 companies will finish their Y2K projects on time -- because that's been their typical behavior all along. But to assume that 95%, or 99%, or 100%, will do so is to suggest that 30 years of software engineering history doesn't matter. If your answer to this is, "It will be different because (a) I say so, and (b) we all want it to be so," then you'll be exhibiting another familiar pattern of software projects over the past 30 years: computer-illiterate senior management practicing management by edict -- e.g., "I have decreed that we will produce a baby in one month by impregnating nine women. It will be so, because I say it will be so."

By the way, another fundamental lesson from 30 years of software project management: the single most important reason that software projects finish late is ... are you ready for this? ... they start late! Social Security will probably succeed with its Y2K project for one simple reason -- not because they're geniuses, not because they worked harder, not because their managers are tougher, but simply because they started in 1991. Conversely, Washington DC's Y2K project won't finish no matter how much money the White House throws at it, because they didn't start until June 1998. It's not that the programmers who work for the city of Washington are stupid or lazy or unmanageable ... it's just that they started late.

I argue that you can apply these basic principles at the "macro" level to get a pretty good idea of how things are going to turn out for companies within an industry, or for entire industries, or for entire national economies around the world. Italy, for example, didn't form its equivalent to our President's Y2K Conversion Council until Jan 1999, didn't have an office or a phone in Feb 1999, and still doesn't have a web site. Kenya's government announced last year that it was forming a committee to study the Y2K problem, the results of which would be presented to the government's leaders in April 2000. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that Italy's chances, and Kenya's chances, and -- through a similar analysis -- the chances of many of the third-world countries outside North America and Western Europe are slim-to-none. Since you're a professional economist, perhaps you can wave your hands and proclaim that Asia's problems and Africa's problems and South America's problems will have no impact on the U.S. economy.... but it doesn't seem obvious to me.

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), April 06, 1999.

looks like infomagic left old bks in the dust again. It's alway fun to watch a true pro at work like that...

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 06, 1999.

That IS amusing, Arlin. Can we preserve this bit of material from InfoSilly, and bring it back later as proof of his predictive genius? Or maybe wait with bated breadth for his next "major Article"? Frotunately, the funny thing is that he'll be wrogn yet again.

-- Amused (chortling@gain.yes), April 06, 1999.

How to admit you are wrong and still keep your faithful audience... in one easy lesson. "I was wrong, it is going to be far worse." The "infomagic" economic predictions were not just off the mark, they missed the target completely. In my neighborhood, this is not the fast track to credibility.

The consensus opinion of economists... Y2K will shave some GDP. I have yet to see one economist of any stature predicting a national banking system failure due to Y2K-related computer problems.

I'm having trouble buying a conspiracy of silence from every local, state and federal government agency, every Fortune 1000 company, every mainstream media, every reputable economist... Is there anyone not in the conspiracy?

The signs of "weakness" in the economy have been welcome news for the inflation hawks. We have managed to exceed "full" employment, keep inflation and interest rates low and enjoy an incredibly long peacetime expansion. Yes, the market is overvalued. It seems every "boomer" is busy stuffing a 401(k) full of stocks and smart international investors are jumping on the only strong equities market in the world. Yes, there will be a correction, call it a crash if you like. Y2K may influence some profit taking (or a larger sell off).

The prediction of a large-scale economic meltdown seems to assume most private and public organizations in America are run by total idiots. Of courrse, some companies will fail due to Y2K-related problems. Some fail every day due to poor business decisions. In fact, we have organizations in every sector, including banking, fail. Y2K is a business problem. To the amazement of some, firms are busy fixing the problem. It's what businesses do with business problems.

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 06, 1999.

It looks like Bradley left Infomagic in the dust. Glad to see a pro at work.

-- April 6 (April6@Great.Britain), April 06, 1999.

Mr Decker,

....and you post on this forum because?

-- beyond curious (makes@nosense.huh), April 06, 1999.

Infomagic may prove to be wrong in the end (I hope so), but he is correct about the fundamentals. No, not the market fundamentals, the IT and ethical fundamentals. The code is broken and the script seems to be playing out basically as feared so far (deadlines, budgets, testing-not, fix on failure around world, etc). The venality of the political scene worldwide really is breathtaking. With respect to the markets, flight to quality is real, but everything except the Dow is in a long trough and the scene with Internet stocks is reaching tulip- bulb levels.

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. Meanwhile, if you prepare for Milne-Infomagic, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain ... that truly matters in this life.

Put another way, I'm not ashamed to be associated with Infomagic (no, that doesn't mean I predict the same scenario) and Arlin.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 06, 1999.

Decker: You said:

"The prediction of a large-scale economic meltdown seems to assume most private and public organizations in America are run by total idiots"

You need to read Dilbert more often.

"Infomagic postulates that for his scenario to unfold, only stupidity and procrastination are needed. Not fancy science fiction movie special effects, just simple human frailty. Ordinary lack of character. The kind of cowardice, greed, and cupidity that elected Marion Barry mayor of Washington, DC. Or that allowed 500 some odd congress critters to say "yeah, he's guilty, but what the heck, let's do lunch." instead of doing their sworn duty." - Nunja Biznec

-- a (a@a.a), April 06, 1999.

Wheeeww wee! There's that smell of burning rectum again...Ed, use K-Y jelly with Decker next time.

-- a (a@a.a), April 06, 1999.

"a": didnt your grams tell you not to count your chickens before they're hatched? btw, you are funny also, but not as funny as Andy.

-- Amused (holding@sides.now), April 06, 1999.

Mr Decker,

I'm no economist. I have had a NASD Series 6 (I know, no big deal) . But IMHO the market upon which "every 'boomer' is busy stuffing a 401(k) full of" is nothing but air. Many of the people I have talked to plan to change their 401(k) allowances within the next 2 months- OUT OF STOCK BASED FUNDS . To say the market is overpriced is the understatement of the century. Our economy is propped up with toothpicks.

One example of the fragility of the market is the "Greenspan Effect". If he even thinks about a .25% increase in the interest rate, the market shivers.

Mr Greenspan has printed up $500B of extra cash for when all of us Y2K doomsayers start taking our cash out and create a panic. LOL

What happens to our economy if it is flooded with all that extra cash ??

As far as " buying a conspiracy of silence from every local, state and federal government agency" ... Check out my state(PA) one of the largest state budgets in the country, spent $40M on Y2K remediation and is claiming 100% compliance.

Like yourself, many of these groups do not seem to understand the problem or its consequences.

If you think all of this is hogwash why don't you start your own Discussion Group.

-- WebRNot (webrnot@ncap13k.com), April 07, 1999.

InfoMagic, Mr. Yourdon, a., Big Dog, WebRNot.....

Thanks guys.

Wow. I stand in awe. There IS intelligent thinkers left in this nation.

Intelligence.......I love it!

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 07, 1999.

Has anyone noticed that Amused is a complete wanker?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 07, 1999.

Dear Andy: coming from a complete pillock, I will take that as a complete compliment.heh heh heh...).

-- Amused (laughing@harder.now), April 07, 1999.

twerp - PILLOCK

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 07, 1999.

Ed, BigDog et al, But what has all this economics stuff and the possibility of a stock market bubble burst, potential recession etc., got to do with the basic tenet of this forum, which is to prepare for the potential (certain for Infomagic) collapse of social order and life-sustaining infrastructures across the industrialised world? Please tell me this was never claimed, that its all been a big misunderstanding, that we have misread your bestsellers, that BigDog's shrieking "PREPARE PREPARE PREPARE" was some kind of ironic parody of Gary North.

-- Tickle (Tickle_yer_fancy@hotmail.com), April 07, 1999.

"...an incredibly long peace time expansion..." The wording of a Clintonista hack.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), April 07, 1999.

Tickle, I'm not sure I understand your question. If you are talking about saving lives and quality of lives I'ld like to point out that the biggest killer of people is poverty. When people have less money to purchase goods and services they have shorter and much harder lives. Same goes when they can't access or there does not exist those goods or services.

If anybody wants know something about the stability of the stock market I would suggest going to Excite.com, click on financials and then look up the following symbols EBAY, YHOO, AMZN, XCIT, AOL, and your favorite other Internet stocks. Once at a symbol click on Charts - look at the 3 year & 3 month, click on Finanacial and note the EPS (earnings per share), and then click on Profile and note the MCAP (market capitalization = the value of all shares). Don't bother calculating the PE (price/earnings ratio) it doesn't make much sense if a company has never made a profit and isn't projected to make a profit for the next two years. Now add up the MCAPs, 7 billion here, 29 billion there, 171 billion over yonder, gosh first thing you know you're talking real money. Heh, heh - that's the problem REAL money (fiat versus lawful money - see any of my previous rants on banking etc.) Anyway, when you hear of an Internet stock going up 5% in a single day please note that the indicates that somewhere between $350M to $5B of potential purchasing power *poofed* into existance. What can *poof* into existance can just as easily *poof* out of existance.

[insert general rant here]

One of the fascinating things about this forum is that it is obvious that many of the participants have NOT read Ed Yourdon's book! Anybody that has read the 2nd edition chapter on banking and finances can't possibly be optimistic about Y2K if they are able to understand 1/3rd of the info in that chapter. Let me put it this way, if there were a forum about football and a person keep posting frequently and vociferacly who wasn't quite sure how many downs there were before turnover, keep forgeting that the field is 100 yards and not 100 feet, weren't sure the points scored for a field goal or a touchdown, wondered why nobody ever shouted "Homerun!", wasn't sure how many minutes were in a quarter or if it was a third, and didn't know what the "players" in the black and white vertical striped shirts were doing, would you expect them to carry on a meaningful conversation about football? Well that pretty much describes a lot of the posters on this here forum. They don't know and they don't want to know. Ed's connecting circles and ripple effect are all you really need to know to understand the seriousness of Y2K.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), April 07, 1999.

Ed and a, you're both idiots.

-- Someone (who@knows.more), April 07, 1999.

Mr. Yourdon,

Sorry for the delay in responding. I logged off and turned in after my message last evening.

Acknowledging that information systems is not my field, let me suggest the following points:

1. Software remediation is not software development or even software engineering. Performance data on the development of a new operating system is not applicable to remediating a specific data element in an existing program. It is like comparing building a car to repairing a carburator.

2. The process of remediation has been increasingly automated thanks to software tools developed in the private sector. Finding Y2K- related problems has become easier and faster (due to market forces). And there is no reason to believe the process will not accelerate as the year continues. Oh, and Y2K programmers are not making NBA salaries yet.

3. Fixing noncompliant systems is very high priority for most firms. As you know, many software projects are doomed from the start. They fade because they lack a clear vision, a well conceived functional analysis, appropriate staffing and resources, etc. It is incorrect to compare an organization's Y2K efforts to "just another software project." The level of attention is closer to a response to a virus infection or a systems "hack."

4. Not all firms rely on computers. Not all computers are "mission critical." Not all programs contain date sensitive data. Not all Y2K noncompliant programs will fail. We do not have data on the percentages, but it is misleading to suggest a single date field error will incapacitate an entire IS system.

Many small businesses use computers in a support role. It is possible for most firms to function, even when the compters are "down," although less efficently.

5. How much of government is "mission critical?" If the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has a systems failure, can we expect angry mimes conducting street demonstrations? Most federal and state agencies could close tomorrow with very little impact aside from the dislocated workers. In fact, it might actually improve the business environment.

6. The U.S. financial system is a widely acknowledged leader in Y2K remediation. Even one-year CDs now mature in 2000. Most authorities in the the critical infrastructure systems--telecommunications, utilities and finance--have positive reports about Y2K remediation efforts. Please, Mr. Yourdon, I hope you are not suggesting, like some readers, a massive conspiracy of silence.

7. With your extensive experience, you know that systems lurch along with patches, work-arounds, quick fixes, manual adjustments, etc. Yes, some firms will fail because they have a complete systems failure, but it takes time to fail. If the network goes down, Mr. Yourdon, the employees do not begin cleaning the personal items out of their desk. Companies will exhaust cash reserves, hire additional staff; they will do everything possible to keep the business moving forward. And, as always, the IS staff will work long hours.

7. The rest of the world's problems (and they are quite extensive) have not slowed our domestic economy. Honestly, I do not think Kenya is a major trading partner... nor do I think many lesser-developed countries (LDCs) are as technology dependent as the advanced economies. Of course, if there is a global depression it will impact the United States... but read some of the posts here. Do you think we are headed for martial law? Do you think the Republic is so fragile that a computer systems problem will result in anarchy?

8. There is no "the code." There are countless hardware platforms and software packages. There is no "broken." Some specific elements must be remediated to ensure Y2K compliance. In this case, Mr. Yourdon, we are looking for a "good enough" solution.

9. Individual firms will fail. If we allow capitalism to work, they always will. Failure, within reason, is a good thing. In fact, we probably do not let enough firms perish. Our government "saves" some businesses that really ought to die. Our government also has many agencies of dubious value. If they do not function, it may prove that we can function as a society quite well without them.

10. You argue that Y2K is like every other software project we have faced during the last 30 years. It started late and will finish late. You also argue that Y2K is unlike anything we have faced before because it is "systemic." If it is "unlike" anything we have faced, isn't it reasaonble to expect a unique response (like the considerable increase in your public profile).

If you were arguing that one "ultra virus" could disable massive numbers of computers, corrupt data and cause serious economic disruptions... I'd agree. In fact, I think we'll see cyber terrorism in our lifetimes. If you think we ought to prepare for such contingencies, again, I agree.

To use a baseball analogy, Y2K is a slow pitch right down the middle of the plate. Everyone in the stadium knows it... and you are right, some firms will still strike out. The pitch I worry about is the wicked split-finger fastball that no one expects.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to further conversations.

Regards,

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 07, 1999.

Just two points to make here:

1. The market is not the economy. They are not strongly related, the economy can be growing and the market stagnant or falling, the economy can be shrinking or stagnant and the DJIA soaring.

2. IFM is a nutcase. IF he is a programmer (I doubt his claims very much) he does not impress me one iota. The simple fact that he is willing to help spread this garbage around should be more than enough to totally discredit Cory Hamasaki.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 07, 1999.

One thing that is not being taken into account with regard to projection of software metrics is that, typically, the data comes from projects which were given the 'thumbs up' by the business (payor). In other words the data are about projects which are already 'bought into' in concept by the payor. Secondly, the projects have no real imposed deadline other than what is agreed upon by the parties involved. Is that clear?

This situation in different than that (and casts a darker shadow over the projections).

1) No one knew what the problem was, how long and what reasources it would take to fix it (before they 'decided' to call it a project).

2) No reasonably accurate estimate of scope of project or time to completion was known (when decision to call it a 'project' was made).

3) The deadline is predetermined and immovable (and was invisible to those who made the decision to finally recognize the practical problem).

4) No payor bought into the necessity of the project until forced to by social/political necessity (So the date of project initiation was arbitrary and had no relationship to objective reality).

5) Most efforts have been focused on internal systems repair and neglected inter-corporate systems.

Which has led to a situation where

1) No one knows if they started in time

2) or if they have allocated enough or appropriate resources.

3) Anyone of any size has had to focus on only 5 to 10% of their total systems

4) garranteeing that ALL THE OTHER SYSTEMS WILL FAIL (might as well dig a hole and bury them now becasue the will NEVER be repaired later).

5) The mass of inter-corporate interfaces are neglected.

SSA started in 1991. They had 30 million lines. They 'forgot' they had 31 million lines in feeder systems in every State until late 1997. Here is an Agency whose outlook is 'future' with a capital 'F'. They started WAY before anyone else and they are only NOW JUST finishing.

The Federal government now says that it has a total of 79,000 systems of which 2800 systems are supposedly remediated or replaced (but no break out of this data). They claim 60+% completion but really have only 'fixed' 3.5% of their total systems. And no one is talking about the 500,000 data interfaces they have reported.

Corporate America is 'Quarter' driven and did not start until 1996 or 1997, even as late as 1998. Their systems are just as intensive as the Federal systems.

Pollys need not respond.

-- David (C.D@I.N), April 07, 1999.

A Suggestion for Mr. Decker's personal Discussion Group:

Blind Faith and Y2K (and Clinton never did inhale)

-- WebRNot (webrnot@ncap13k.com), April 07, 1999.

Paul Davis commented:

"1. The market is not the economy. They are not strongly related, the economy can be growing and the market stagnant or falling, the economy can be shrinking or stagnant and the DJIA soaring. "

Let's define 'market falling'. There are ALWAYS periods when the market corrects, this is normal and healthy. During this time the economy may well be growing. Then there are periods when the market falls and does not recover for years or decades.

This market is more overvalued than any in the history of our country. The major indicies are rising but the average NYSE and Nasdaq stock is down. This economy is built on a house of cards as is the stock market.

If the average investor took the time to UNDERSTAND the value placed on the companies they are invested in, shock would set in instantly.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

I'm getting tired of the whining about the "purpose" of this forum. If you think that understanding the probable impacts of the Y2K problem, as opposed to the possible, is not part of preparing then you don't know what preparation means.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 07, 1999.

If Y2K amounts to anything over a 2 or 3, Infomagic is obviously right in that "It will be worse". The denial - no-preperation strategy, sun-shiny days ahead scenarios are getting so strong that now ANY significant disruption will be geometrically compounded by the peoples hysterical reactions to What "CAN'T happen" (in most peoples way of thinking).

Y2K - the technical problem - no longer scares me half as much as the worsening possible reaction to an upset apple cart.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), April 07, 1999.

David:

[Your post is excellent and extremely instructive. Some of what you write is dead accurate. Some of it is wildly incorrect. What's instructive is, your conclusions are intelligent, often logical extensions of your assumptions. To the degree that these assumptions are false, your conclusions suffer. I think it might be helpful to examine all this carefully (at least, it helps me understand much more clearly how intelligent people can get so very far off base.)]

This situation in different than that (and casts a darker shadow over the projections).

1) No one knew what the problem was, how long and what reasources it would take to fix it (before they 'decided' to call it a project).

[Almost true. Geeks have been warning about date bugs for a while now (Cory started 20 years ago). Some large organizations probably had some IT people with a 'gut feeling' for their exposure, but mostly it was a mystery.]

2) No reasonably accurate estimate of scope of project or time to completion was known (when decision to call it a 'project' was made).

[Very true, but trivially true. Before inventory and assessment, no reasonably accurate estimates could be made.]

3) The deadline is predetermined and immovable (and was invisible to those who made the decision to finally recognize the practical problem).

[No doubt about the deadline(s) being immovable. Whether the decision makers didn't realize the century would end is doubtful. Initially, I don't think the deadline was 'invisible', but the required effort to meet that deadline was largely unknown.]

4) No payor bought into the necessity of the project until forced to by social/political necessity (So the date of project initiation was arbitrary and had no relationship to objective reality).

[Largely false, if I'm reading this right. I think it's accurate enough to say that nobody started until they realized they *had* to. But many realized this in plenty of time, and started in plenty of time. Even Gary North concedes that the 80-20 rule applies here. 80% started in time, 20% did not. The issue is, what impact will those 20% have? With relatively few exceptions, organizations started in what they *thought* was enough time. Some of them vastly underestimated the size of the task, and started too late as a result.]

5) Most efforts have been focused on internal systems repair and neglected inter-corporate systems.

[Very misleading. Inter-corporate interface repair and testing naturally falls toward the end of the project. You can't test repairs you haven't done yet. You *must* focus on phases in a natural order - inventory your systems, assess those systems, prioritize the systems, repair the systems, unit-test the systems, system-test the systems, and FINALLY do the inter-organizational interface testing. For each system, you must focus on what needs to be done to complete that system's current phase. This doesn't mean the next phase has been neglected, it means you haven't got that far yet.

One big problem is, valid inter-organization testing requires that all of the organizations involved must have reached the point where they can participate. Those 20% (or whatever) of late starters really inhibit this process. Some of them can be (and are being) cut out of the system, but this is limited -- sometimes there are no viable substitutes, and it will take too long for viable substitutes to be developed. This is a real threat.]

Which has led to a situation where

1) No one knows if they started in time

[No longer the case. By now, it's clear to nearly every sizeable organization whether they started in time or not. Unfortunately, it's becoming clear to quite a few that they in fact started too late, and need to cut some serious corners.]

2) or if they have allocated enough or appropriate resources.

[Again, we've reached the point by now where we can use hindsight on this. Based on the demand for remediators, it appears that more organizations are now ramping down than ramping up. And some big ones are belatedly cranking up the volume. By all indications, the predicted (by North and Hamasaki) huge shortfall of qualified staffing never materialized.]

3) Anyone of any size has had to focus on only 5 to 10% of their total systems

[Almost universally false. You should read Arnold Trembley's St. Louis time machine reports (about Mastercard). They have remediated ALL their systems, undergone IV&V several times, and been engaged in interface testing with customers for many months now. They've had a full-scale time machine operating for over a year, and have been renting out time on it to many other organizations.

Indeed, this statement is so false as to bias your conclusions completely. In the private sector, very few companies have admitted to letting ANY noncritical systems slide, and most are predicting complete compliance of ALL their systems.

In the public sector, you (and many posters here) have made a fundamentally false assumption -- that if the government only talks about compliance of their critical systems, they are only *working* on critical systems. But read the recent FAA thread - they are remediating ALL systems. Even the DOD article said that DOD had remediated HALF their noncritical systems. Yes, half leaves a long way to go.

But the statement that only 5-10% of systems are being remediated in ALL sectors because the government is only talking about 9% of their systems, not only represents a false assumption, it is flat contradicted by EVERY source of information we have.]

4) garranteeing that ALL THE OTHER SYSTEMS WILL FAIL (might as well dig a hole and bury them now becasue the will NEVER be repaired later).

[WHOA! Here, you compound an error of evidence from (3) with an error of logic. It is simply invalid to say that something not guaranteed to work is therefore guaranteed to fail! I can't guarantee that you are an adult. Does this mean I *can* guarantee that you are a child? It doesn't follow. Try thinking, dammit!

Beyond that error, you make an utterly unsupported assertion that any system that fails will NEVER be repaired. But systems fail all the time, and are being repaired all the time. We've been reading about vacations being cancelled around rollover to FIX anything that happens to break. We know that date bugs have been hitting us pretty regularly already, and we're dealing with them. We haven't buried these systems in a hole, and we never needed to. And never will.

By this point, I fear you have started to babble. Time to count to 10 and check your data and logic. Both are badly incorrect.]

5) The mass of inter-corporate interfaces are neglected.

[You already said this, and it was already wrong. If you want to say that we should have reached the point where we're addressing these interfaces by now, I agree wholeheartedly. If you want to argue that by the time we get to this point, we can do at best a half-assed (or quarter-assed) job, I agree again. But we haven't 'neglected' them, and many of them indeed are being tested (Wall Street is doing it publicly, many are now doing so privately). Just not enough.]

SSA started in 1991. They had 30 million lines. They 'forgot' they had 31 million lines in feeder systems in every State until late 1997. Here is an Agency whose outlook is 'future' with a capital 'F'. They started WAY before anyone else and they are only NOW JUST finishing.

[I admit I don't have that much confidence in them either. A lot of what you've written so far applies to the SSA project fairly well, I think. They started hitting bugs in lookaheads in 1989, and have been fixing what breaks ever since, on a case-by-case basis. Only recently did y2k become an SSA 'project'. The feeder system code is a hot potato -- it is legally the responsibility of the states, but the states don't want to fix it. I expect there will be delays, mistakes, and a certain amount of public impatience and dissatisfaction with SSA. Thier performance will be degraded for a while. But please don't confuse temporary degradation with permanent total failure.]

The Federal government now says that it has a total of 79,000 systems of which 2800 systems are supposedly remediated or replaced (but no break out of this data). They claim 60+% completion but really have only 'fixed' 3.5% of their total systems. And no one is talking about the 500,000 data interfaces they have reported.

[Not true. Error of fact according to ALL sources. Try reading. The Federal government just reported 92% of 6300 systems supposedly remediated or replaced. Not only is this DOUBLE the number you just fabricated, but the remaining systems (anywhere from 55,000 to 70,000, who knows?) HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED!

This is an error of logic, David. If you have 5 children and the doctor examines one of them and says he's not sick, do you automatically conclude that the other 4 unexamined children must ALL be sick? On what basis? I can't decide if your above calculation is a deliberate attempt to create misinformation, or a sincere blunder resulting from a fanatical bias. In either case, it is NOT valid to draw conclusions without data!]

Corporate America is 'Quarter' driven and did not start until 1996 or 1997, even as late as 1998. Their systems are just as intensive as the Federal systems.

[True in both cases. But all you're doing here is saying when they started. Whether these starts were too late is a different question. You state that their systems require just as much work. Likely true, but that doesn't tell us HO MUCH work that is, or whether the allocated resources are appropriate to that work level.]

Pollys need not respond.

[Look, David, there's certainly ample evidence that a whole lot of processes will break. Most of these will break because we didn't get to them in time, and some will break because we broke them trying to fix them. Trying to determine how this will affect each of us personally is extremely difficult even in general outline.

But if you persist in applying bad logic to bad data to arrive at predetermined conclusions, you'll never even see the general outlines. By all means prepare for the worst. But making a false case that the worst is guaranteed helps nobody, especially yourself.]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 07, 1999.

Dear Mr. Flint,

I feel as if I should send a check for all the work you just saved me. Thank you.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 07, 1999.

"...what we have found is that the earlier a company started remediation, the more pessimistic they were about meeting the deadline."

- Cap Gemni, survey of European IT departments, Summer 1998

Sorry, 'a', my money goes under the mattress. Yes, I recognize this imperils the system, and that if everyone did it it's self- fulfilling. But nonetheless...

Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 02, 1999.

-- a (a@a.a), April 07, 1999.

'a':

Seems to me this Cap Gemini quote can be read in two entirely different ways:

1) The simple reading is that the pessimists started earlier. OK, this is entirely reasonable. The less confidence you have in meeting the deadline, the earlier you start. Duh!

2) The convoluted reading is that the early starters became more pessimistic as time went on and they had time to realize how massive the project really was, whereas the later starters hadn't yet had time to realize how much trouble they were really in.

I take it you subscribe to this second interpretation? I wonder if Cap Gemini still finds this to be true (this quote is very old).

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 07, 1999.

Yes the second one definitely. When I left my technical management position and became a consultant, I remember training my replacement, a veteran s/w manager with many years experience. I told him not to be fooled by the apparent orderly appearance of our software enterprise, and that understanding it was like peeling an onion one thin layer at a time. He laughed at the time, but it's not so funny to him a year and half later, now that understands how little he understands... :)

-- a (a@a.a), April 07, 1999.

Interesting back and forth--I appreciate the thought that goes into most of the postings. Just a quick comment on Decker's post.

Decker wrote:

"7. The rest of the world's problems (and they are quite extensive) have not slowed our domestic economy. Honestly, I do not think Kenya is a major trading partner... nor do I think many lesser-developed countries (LDCs) are as technology dependent as the advanced economies. Of course, if there is a global depression it will impact the United States..."

This is an often stated assumption about Y2K that is essentially true on the surface, but actually false (and there are indications that the Asian crisis has slowed sectors of the US economy, BTW). It takes a lot less than a global depression to impact the US. While I understand why it might make sense on the surface, one needs to dig into it a bit to realize why developing countries are such a problem.

Just a quick background. I live and work in Southeast Asia, am fluent in Thai and have a Ph.D. in Sociology with an emphasis on international development from UC Berkeley. In addition to teaching at regional universities (including a position at an Economics Faculty in Thailand), I do a lot of consulting work for international development organizations (both local NGOs and UN organizations). Most of my research and expertise is on the social and economic impact of development and globalization--as well as extensive experience in the IT field (which is how I worked my way through parts of grad school). This is just said to put what I say in perspective--e.g. I'm not just spouting off about something I know nothing about.

I am very worried about developing countries. Anyone who thinks they are not going to impact the US needs to go to the library, pull out any of the reference books on international economics, and look at the flow of primary products as well as manufactured goods. It is easy to get a list of trading partners, and while I don't have the references in front of me (they are at my office on campus) I wouldn't be so sure about Kenya not being problem.

The issue isn't Kenya per se, of course, but rather that a supposed "low level of computerization" will protect developing countries. If anything, the exact opposite it true--they are probably MORE exposed in some respects than the US and Europe since what little they DO have computerized is critical to their on-going economic (and social and political) viability.

Here is an example. I just got back from a consultancy in Bangladesh. If any of you want to go see what "fourth world" really means--spend a few days in Dakha and the surrounding countryside. While the majority of people don't care about Y2K (getting food for next week is a higher priority), all the government and non-governmental organizations depend on computers. Essentially none of them are doing anything for Y2K. So what? Well, there are a huge number of factories in and around Dakha--run by US, Thai and South Korean firms (among others). They produce textiles and clothing, the sort of stuff you buy at REI. They are not at all ready, and if, say, the (computerized) customs office in Bangladesh has a long crash due to Y2K, that will impact the exporters and all those who import (e.g. REI). The average Joe (or Kabir) in the village won't care--but it could (will?) cause the collapse of the local economy and the government. This will have an impact on the US, especially those companies which import from Bangladesh. And if you work at REI and get fired because they can't keep their sales going, that computer in Bangladesh has directly affected you.

Now, consider that most developing countries are (generally) dependent on a single (or small set) of export products for their income. (Generally, the more developed the country, the more diversified its economy.) Most of these exports are critical components of industrial production elsewhere. It wouldn't take much to kick the legs out from under many countries in Africa (and elsewhere) if there are y2k related failures to processing or exporting, especially since most government revenues come from taxes on exports. Follow the raw commodities (e.g. bauxite) and think through what the impact on the US (and the world) will be of removing those from the global economy.

Just because they are less developed doesn't mean developing countries aren't a problem--for them (and I live in a medium-high level developing country) and "us" (being the US).

If you want to know what Y2K might be like in a developing country, think about about what happened in Jakarta last summer. THAT is the sort of social/political unrest we might be looking at all over Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia.

-Mark

-- Mark Ritchie (mark@nospam.com), April 08, 1999.