Public Posts = Private E-mails
In some cases this equation is not equal and it is troubling.
When I post on this forum, there are the usual postings to the thread; but sometimes I also receive private e-mails from these posters and sometimes people do not post but send private e-mails. Why is this happening, you say. These people tell me they can't afford to go public with what they know to be true. This is because they work or have worked, in either electric companies, pipeline transmissions, refineries, ports, etc. I am not going to betray their confidences so I can't post what they say about specific companies and if I post what they say, couching it in generalities, I am not believed.
I believe Rick and Bonnie have also received private information they can't post.
As long as we have this divergence, the public cannot become aware of the severity of the problem. I believe there will be deaths due to the truth not being completely known. Sad.
-- Anonymous, April 24, 1999
David, I think you're correct that we will never have a clear picture -- because I truly don't think anyone has or can have a clear picture of the broad situation, including those insiders who report either good progress or serious concerns. There is lots of focus on this utility, or that corporation, or such and such a government agency. Many do try looking at the overall picture by industry, and know that the interconnections between each segment of our society are also vitally important. However, what is generally not taken into consideration is the many subdivisions of the Y2K issue even within a corporation or agency. This is one of the reasons why the private e-mail Marcella mentions has both value and may be misleading at the same time.
For instance, a single utility can own 60+ individual generating plants of different types. A report I might hear from a person working in one of those plants may be quite different from what someone else might see in another. Not all IT or Y2K project teams are created equal, nor is the expertise and experience of the everyday human resources available, nor is the competence of the management tiers.
The fact of the matter is that one corporation may have its main frames done but nothing else. Another may have its embedded systems taken care of but the main frame is a mess. One plant may be in fine shape, another one not, but both owned by the same organization. Or one office in an agency may have a guy who has taken great care in his remediation and another office in the same business may not have even started. Or one company may have finished the job but be terrified it's overseas dependencies will bring it down anyway. **The risks of Y2K disruptions can be brought down to the level of one person not doing the job, or not doing it correctly.** That one person may not affect anything materially, or that one person may work in a critical area, or that one person may work for one vendor who supplies...?
This is the insidious nature of the problem and why NO ONE is going to KNOW anything absolutely until after the fact. What we can know is that human nature remains the same and the variables in that one area alone can put to shame any organized Y2K project.
While I will continue to respect and maintain the anonymity of those who have e-mailed me various reports, I can tell you that one of the categories a good portion of these reports fall into is what I term the "We're in over our head, here." syndrome. Can you imagine the management of a medium sized plant forgoing the expense to hire experts and doing such things as assigning a section of embedded system inventory and assessment tasks to someone whose only qualifications for the job are that he seems to be pretty good with computers and is known for playing a lot of computer games well? I hope you can.
I hope this helps people recognize that even good-intentioned management may not know what they think they know. In my experience management tends to rather blindly believe that employees will accomplish whatever tasks they are assigned to do. Do you remember the surprise management expressed when so much mail was found dumped in the Chicago area? I personally know the shock one office manager received when weeks of complaints about customer data not being input was finally traced to a couple of bottom desk drawers in which one employee had stuffed all the work she couldn't keep up with.
I also am aware that it's a rare situation when any employee has a solid enough ego to announce that the task is beyond their capabilities, the complexities over their head, or there's not enough hours in the day to do their job and Y2K work, too. They may state these things to friends, or their wives, but not to their bosses.
A second category of e-mail reports is one which could be characterized by, "We can't get this done in time, we don't have the resources and we didn't start early enough."
I don't think it's a secret that a third category could be characterized by, "Most of our management is computer illiterate and can't see why a date problem could have much importance. They continue to think the whole thing is a hoax or that whatever happens we'll be able to just fix it in a couple of days so there's no need to do anything now."
Finally, I'll leave you with a warning from a friend of mine who works for an international consulting company whose name I'm sure you would recognize. This consultant says that one problem he sees is that the right questions are not being asked. For instance, if out of 100 systems which need software remediation, you declare you have remediated 97 of them and only have three to go that sounds wonderful. However, if those three systems remaining are the ones which have millions of lines of code instead of thousands or hundreds of thousands, then you can still be in big trouble even though you're reporting 97% completion. In fact it's entirely possible to still be in trouble with a 99% completion rate, depending on how systems are defined.
It's likely this whole post hasn't raised your optimism any, but this is the reality of the information I have and the experience I've acquired. It's why I began promoting personal risk management plans and why I continue to do so. The Y2K computer problem is a HUMAN problem. There is no more variable thing on the face of the earth.
-- Anonymous, April 25, 1999
I've noticed that people tend to defend their beliefs about Y2K, one way or the other, with religious zeal. People get into shouting arguments about it. Which indicates to me that everyone's taking his or her belief mostly on faith.
I was already living a fairly self-sufficient lifestyle, so I haven't had THAT much extra preparation to do. However, many members of my extended family and my friends are vulnerable. It's terribly frustrating not to have a clue.
This thread has been rather helpful, and I guess it makes sense that people would want to keep quiet about not being able to do a job that's been assigned to them, even if it's an impossible one. Taking the info in this thread together with everything else I've read, I'd guess that things are gonna be pretty bad.
Perhaps at an intuitive level most people know this, and that's why they so vehemently deny that it's gonna be bad. If it were merely a matter of storing up a few months' worth of food, I can't imagine people would be so resistant to the idea. It seems like a very low cost, low risk insurance.
To my mind, the key industry to watch is oil. If the oil industry is seriously disrupted, then I would expect to see major changes, disruptions taking many years to adjust to. If the oil industry suffers only minor problems, then I would expect the Y2K adjustment period to be more along the lines of a year or 2 even if there are serious problems in some other industries.
API report said to expect problems with imported oil. Does anyone reading this have any specific info on the oil industry?
--GG
-- Anonymous, April 30, 1999