Milne: 16 Reasons Why Self-Reporting Is Speciousgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Subject: 16 Reasons Why Self-Reporting Is Specious Date: 1999/05/14 Author: fedinfo <firstname.lastname@example.org> Posting History
Auditor: Some cities ignoring Y2K problems
By Mike Rutledge, Post staff reporter
With seven and a half months until the year 2000, state Auditor Jim Petro is quietly sounding warning bells to Ohio governments about problems that can arise not only Jan. 1, but also on Sept. 9 - or ''9/9/99'' - a signal that computer users often use to shut down programs.
''It is clear that some governments are facing a significant risk,'' said Petro, who noted ''the year 2000 poses a non-negotiable deadline.''
Petro's office surveyed 88 counties, 250 cities and 125 school
districts in February. Only 31 county auditors, 12 county commissions and 11 county treasurers responded. Of the 250 cities, 77 answered. And of the 612 school districts, 230 superintendents and 125 school
But based on officials' answers to other questions - and the belief that self-assessments tend to be more rosy than reality - ''we believe their assessment may be too optimistic,'' Petro's recently issued report found.
Here are some reasons for Petro's pessimism:
26 percent of entities still had not appointed a Y2K project manager.
45 percent had not developed a project plan identifying all major tasks that must be performed along with target dates to resolve Y2K problems.
32 percent had not inventoried all hardware system software that are not Y2K compliant.
66 percent had not developed contingency plans in the event any
''mission-critical'' systems fail to operate next year.
47 percent did not have a policy preventing purchase of software products that are not Y2K compliant.
38 percent lacked an organization policy to determine whether existing hardware and software needed to be upgraded or replaced to avoid problems.
52 percent had not identified files they maintain that needed Y2K conversions.
40 percent lacked the money in their budgets to eliminate Y2K problems.
28 percent had not begun making changes to mission-critical systems.
35 percent did not plan to test software for Y2K before the year ends.
46 percent did not plan to test whether the date 9-9-99 will cause glitches.
35 percent did not plan to test whether the date 1-1-00 will cause problems.
53 percent did not plan to test for the date 1-7-00, the end of the first work week of next year.
31 percent had not developed a contingency plan addressing all the internal and external Y2K issues that could affect them. And 68 percent have not scheduled a date to test that contingency plan.
41 percent were not monitoring whether their suppliers also will be Y2K compliant.
50 percent had not found alternative software for computer applications that the manufacturer no longer supports.
Petro gives SIXTEEN **GOOD** reasons why these ridiculous self- assessments are far far too optimistic.
The assessments are absurd, on the whole when understood in light of IT Metrics. Look at his sixteen reasons. THIRTY TWO PERCENT do not even plan to TEST, the single most important thing that they need to do.
Do you think Ohio is an isolated case?
The WHOLE country is in this shape or WORSE. Will you now come out and complain that this is not so because Pennsylvania may be ahead of the curve? Irrelevant. The other 49 are in the crapper.
The world is going down and the US is going down hard right along with the rest of them. Actually, the US is going down MUCH MUCH harder. We are FAR more dependant and are FAR more used to a certain standard of living. When it is no longer available it will go much much harder on those who suddenly must do without. The senior citizen who eats lunch and dinner every day at IHOP. The welfare dependents. The bedroom communities full of commuters who can't get out or have supplies brought in.
The US will be utterly crippled.
Think that I am off base?
Name ONE major airport that has remediated, tested and has put their systems BACK into production. Just one.
That alone will cripple the nation's economy.
Now, name one major OIL Co. that has remediated, tested and is back in production. Railroad? Water utility? Telecom?
Come on all you 'big brained' pollyannas. Name ONE of the above.
Six months to go. Not ONE. This is not hyperbole.
If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
-- a (email@example.com), May 14, 1999
They can't. Simple logic.
They will however declare that since they don't agree with the premise of Mr. Milne's questions, it is not applicable to Y2K - and therefore a useless argument.
They will also note by emotional logic that the Airport system in this nation is not interconnected with THEIR world, therefore will not impact the overall economy and workings of the nation.
But that's all moot, THEY WILL have it fixed in time, or have work- arounds (like they do with the Aurora Control Center that runs O'Hare that they've been attempting to upgrade for the last five years?).
Don't bother asking polly's to provide logical proof to back up their ideology.
They run on emotional rhetoric.
If you don't have 2000000 Sunblock or a fallout shelter...you're toast.
-- INVAR (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 14, 1999.
The 9/9/99 issue was hammered out at great length in csy2k, and nobody could come up with a single example of even a *legitimate* string of 9's causing a computer to 'shut down programs' -- much less the use of a DATE field to generate this string. Yet Jim Petro says that computers 'often' do this.
I wonder if the rest of his information is less bogus?
-- Flint (email@example.com), May 14, 1999.
I'm not at all worried about 9/9/99. The isolated failures will be sparse enough to be fixed.
1/1/00, however -- watch out.
This post of Milne's is very interesting and gives more angles to chew. Thanks for bringing it here, a.
deja.com certainly has spiffed up its look the last few weeks! Nice improvement.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
-- Leska (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 15, 1999.