Maybe Norm has started reading his essays...

R.

www.y2ktimebomb.com/DSA/VP/vp9914.htm

*********************************************************************************

Facts & Faith By Victor PorlierApril 7, 1999

In our hyper-speed, information drenched, highly commercialized society, one of the most valuable things a person can give is their attention.

America is fragmented into media tribes. Those listening to Montel Williams on daytime TV are not likely to be the same as those listening to radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh. It's a safe bet that Jim Lehrer's viewers are not typically readers of the National Inquirer. It's amazing how many don't even watch or read the news, but go by scanned headlines, word of mouth, and tidbits from here and there. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and C-Span viewers account for only a small minority of Americans. Few of those on the Internet have ever visited a Y2K site. There is no such entity as "the general public," only "key publics" who attend to different concerns and priorities.

The American institutional establishment - the Beltway, the Fed, Wall Street, the major corporations and their trade associations, the universities, and the mass print and TV media - currently appear to conclude that Y2K will be a non-event except in a few locales which may experience up to two or three days of disruptions.

I have the impression that only a tiny but growing minority of individual Americans are making some contingency plans and acting on them. The polls are notoriously lop-sided on such questions because of the ambiguity of the questions polled and the willingness of the public to respond honestly. But the back orders on generators, oil lamps, wood cook stoves, and certain kinds of ammunition suggest that at least some are preparing. It would be helpful to know what is getting the attention of those who are preparing. Why them and not others? To what facts, inferences, and authorities are they giving their attention?

Then there are the larger numbers who are vaguely nervous about their bank accounts and investments and are contemplating taking various sums of cash out. This is true for both households and businesses. I conclude that it is this group's concerns that trouble the institutional authorities the most. Bank runs are something to be avoided as they threaten the lifeblood of the economy. I suspect this is the root of the fervent message that the banks will be "ok."

It is unfortunate that there have been no national discussions or town meetings to allow the American people or their community opinion leaders to hear the different viewpoints, analyses, and concerns of Y2K analysts across the broad spectrum. Nor is there likely to be, lacking any national leadership from the Beltway or from the philanthropically able.

With less than nine months until 2000, what are some concerns that are likely to have a strong bearing on global forecasts, actions, and outcomes?

First, I find most of the talk about 1999 pre-cursor checkpoints more misleading than helpful. Take the Euro Phase I currency conversion. Here a political imperative from all the European governments and banks involved had top management support, adequate resources, and a sufficient timeline to complete this single task. Despite overall success, some in the banking community say that the minor glitches are many and fixing them is keeping too many programmers away from Y2K remediation projects in Europe.

Then there is the New York State April 1 fiscal year rollover. Here we have a state government that got started in 1996, had top management support, a Y2K budget of $117 million, reports an 80% mission critical systems completion rate, and knew that the April 1 rollover was critical to the fiscal functioning and public image of the state. How in the world can their success (which all of us applaud, especially those of us who are residents in the state) be generalized as an indicator of Y2K success overall both domestically and abroad?

Yes, I know the media needs "news hooks" and we want all the success stories we can get; but to attempt to generalize from the Euro conversion or a highly specific event such as the April 1 or such upcoming checkpoints such as the July 1 rollovers, unless there are surprisingly massive failures, is foolish. Especially when we have no way of getting comprehensive reports of any failures that do occur unless large numbers of people are publicly impacted. Even then, we will be faced with the same question that was asked about the New Jersey food stamp overrun. Was it Y2K or something else that was at fault?

Second point: we can't possibly know what is going on in the millions of remediation efforts underway globally. On the one hand, we are told that many successful completions are not being reported because:

1.that might imply a warranty and if there were a glitch, however minor, such an implied warranty would be grounds for litigation, 2.by keeping mum a possible competitive advantage may be gained over less diligent competitors, and 3.your programming staff may become targets for recruiters looking for seasoned Y2K help.

On the other hand, many currently unsuccessful and seriously lagging projects are not being honestly reported because

1.top management knows they are behind but does not want stock analysts or customers to know, 2.top management thinks the IT staff is on schedule, but it isn't and the IT staff members are afraid to report for fear of "shoot the messenger" responses, and 3.many companies are relying solely on the producers of the products they use to certify their own Y2K compliance. Based on known inaccuracies of some producers' compliance certification, the failure to test such purchases could be a serious mistake.

When "cautiously" or "reasonably" optimistic forecasts are made on the basis of incomplete (often seriously so) surveys, how can one be encouraged? Most of those industries that do respond are offering self-assessments that are not independently verified or validated. We aren't talking facts here. We're talking leaps of faith. I am unclear as to why such forecasts can even be labeled "informed."

If these organizations had sufficient foresight and project management expertise, they would have initiated their Y2K efforts long ago and be finished now. With only a few months to go they are still not finished and continue to promise success soon. Furthermore, we are told little or nothing about their other non-mission critical systems which are only important and supportive, their electronic data interchanges, their embedded systems, or their supplier-customer dependency chains.

The official compilers of the minimalist data are, nevertheless, sufficiently optimistic to say Y2K will be a "non-event." To this statement there is usually appended a footnote, "more than half of the small and medium sized governments and businesses have not started, nor have most foreign entities." This is akin to doing an annual physical that includes some limited blood tests and checking a pulse, then concluding that there will be no serious medical complications in the next twelve to twenty-four months. It is clear that the "guarded optimism" of officialdom is not rooted in sufficient fact to be persuasive; it's floating in the faith of desired outcomes. Whatever facts, inferences, and authorities we come to believe in, to have faith in, to put our confidence in, may well determine our personal and community safety, health, and quality of life in the coming months.

We must not allow our minds to become consumed by spirits of fear nor by spirits of complacency. Rather we need minds that are alert, questioning, and discerning; minds that do not blindly trust in assertions and forecasts that are more faith than fact, more dream than data.

-- Roland (nottellint@nowhere.com), April 07, 1999

Answers

Thanks Roland. Porlier's column in Westergaard is always my first stop on Wednesdays! He has a way of putting it into perspective that I always appreciate.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), April 07, 1999.