This was posted day before yesterday. Only a few people responded. No pollyanna cared to add his spin. Why not?

Big Companies Falling Behind in Year 2000 Repairs, Survey Says

By BARNABY J. FEDER

The largest companies in the nation continue to fall behind their schedules for Year 2000 repairs, and most suspect that their budget estimates for the remaining work are too low, according to a survey in April that was the latest in a closely watched series that began in 1994.

About 22 percent say they do not expect to have all of their critical systems tested and ready to adjust when the clock ticks over to Jan. 1, 2000. That is up from 16 percent in November and 12 percent last August.

The number of companies that have actually encountered a computer failure stemming from Year 2000 date miscalculations jumped to 72 percent in April from 55 percent in the previous survey, which was completed in November. Eight percent of the 152 Fortune 500 companies and 14 government agencies responding said they had severed relations with a supplier, customer or partner because of Year 2000 problems. This is the first time that such moves have been reported.

The surveys, which are sponsored by CAP Gemini America, a New York consulting firm, are carried out by Howard A. Rubin, an information technology researcher based in Pound Ridge, N.Y. The respondents are typically chief information officers or project managers.

"Everyone agrees there will be some sort of disruptions," Rubin said. "The real issue is going to be how you maintain business continuity."

The fear is that computers will break down because they read the year 2000 as 1900.

About 85 percent of those polled said that spending would have to rise beyond current estimates, mostly to support more testing and the creation of emergency command centers and other contingency plans aimed at keeping business running despite any Year 2000 glitches. Projects are slipping past their expected deadlines at 92 percent of the companies.

"It's typical information technology," said Prof. Leon A. Kappelman, a software management expert at the University of North Texas. "You don't get any recognition until the last 30 days that your project is going to be late."

More than a third now report that their companies are cutting back on new information technology projects to pay for Year 2000 work. In part because of the attention to contingency planning, which involves business managers in addition to technology specialists, the percentage of work done internally has jumped to 82 percent from 60 percent in November.

For all the problems, the respondents seem confident in their ability to manage their way through Year 2000 disruptions. Three out of four said that their Year 2000 programs will give them a competitive advantage, the survey found.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/biztech/articles/17bug.html

-- a (a@a.a), May 19, 1999

Answers

ATTN a@a.a : SO WHAT you act as though 100% is the be-all and end-all -- get an intelligent techie friend to explain all this stuff to you

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 19, 1999.

We will grant for the nonce that 100% is NOT the be all and end all. However, 4/5 ths ain't even CLOSE, and 8% (the number that have NOT had slppages [100-92]) is REALLY not even close.

Projects are slipping past their expected deadlines at 92 percent of the companies.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 19, 1999.

And under the heading of "Where are the failures" they are right here. Granted they have been kluged or otherwise worked around, ut they ARE here. The open question is, what happens when they start to show up in bunches.

The number of companies that have actually encountered a computer failure stemming from Year 2000 date miscalculations jumped to 72 percent in April from 55 percent in the previous survey, which was completed in November.

Chicken Little commented:

"ATTN a@a.a : SO WHAT you act as though 100% is the be-all and end-all -- get an intelligent techie friend to explain all this stuff to you."

I think it is fair to say that these kinds of comments from our Polly friends will become more and more prevalent as the weeks go by. They will morph into whatever suits the current situation regarding y2k.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 19, 1999.

Media Company Falling Behind in Year 2000 stories, Commissions Survey . .

By Chuck Quietnewsday

The largest media companies in the nation continue to fall behind their targets for newspaper sales, and most suspect that their estimates for upcoming Y2K hard news stories are too high, according to a survey of the secretarial pool in April that was the latest in a largely ignored series that began in a quiet news week in 1994. About 22.4136 of one percent of the secretaries say they do not expect to have all of their nail-file systems tested and ready to adjust when the clock ticks over to Jan. 1, 2000. That is up from 16.764 percent in November 1967 and 12.328 percent last wednesday, but down from 78.90453% on March 19th and 91.407% in April 1066.

The number of media companies that have actually encountered a verifyable computer failure story stemming from Year 2000 date miscalculations jumped to 2.02 percent in April from 0.561 percent in January's mailroom survey, which was completed by a couple of drunken reporters in November in the usual pre-christmas lull. Eight percent of the 152 mailroom workers and 14 passing conspiracy theorists responding said they had severed relations with reality, common sense or any kind of brain activity because of their paranoia about Year 2000 problems. This is the first time that such moves have been reported from the mailroom. This in turn has led to fears that internal mail deliveries may be delayed "due to Y2K". The surveys, which are sponsored by Timelyscams Inc, a Y2K remediation and consulting firm, (and suppliers of the "Tast-E-Beenz" MRE range) are carried out by Troy Imaginative Burble, a community cable TV show host, astrologer and spirit-medium based in Boise, Idaho. The respondents are typically his friends, office workers with too much time on their hands, or managers. "Everyone, including my Bank Manager, agrees there will be an upsurge in newspaper sales due to this kind of survey," Burble said. "The real issue is going to be how much of this stuff we can get away with."

The fear is that readers will break down in tears because they read this kind of year 2000 survey and wonder why they bothered to buy the newspaper in the first place.

For all the problems, the company's owners seem confident in their ability to continue to subject their readership to surveys masquerading as hard news, for some time to come. Three out of four said that their Year 2000 surveys will give them a competitive advantage, another survey found.

Contd on pages 10,32,33,60,72 and 141

More surveys pages 11,14,16 and 40 thru 46

Hard news, page 3 bottom column on left. (Kosovo report)

http://www.someonepleasesendusarealstory.com/desparate/really/survey.h tml

-- Do I (sound@cynical?.com), May 19, 1999.

You're absolutely right Chuck and we didn't even notice that a hugh 72% actually encountered Y2K failures.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 19, 1999.

Don't you just LOVE the polly spin on this? Ray, you are correct. As the evidence mounts that many companies are NOT going to make the immovable deadline (1/1/00), pollys will vehemently insist that IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! Our migrating debunkers are starting to sound so pathetic that it's getting painful to read their comments.

Nabi, who is infected with the ability to think clearly and logically

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

And what companies comprise that 22%? A lot depends on who they are. Are they mission critical for our way of life?

-- Buddy (.@...), May 19, 1999.

None of this stuff matters to the Pollys. Even if 100% of the companies didn't make it on time, it will all be fixed over the long holiday weekend, and Tuesday, January 4th, will dawn with nothing more than the common everyday computer headaches we see every day and deal with. So let's just hear it for our fabulous Polly programmers and IT experts, Rah! Rah! Rah!

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 19, 1999.

Let's think about this, OK? About 22% of the largest companies in the nation say "they do not expect to have all of their critical systems tested and ready" come 1/1/00.

Critical system - a system CRITICAL to the continued operation of the business.

22% x 500 = 110

OK, Buddy, try to follow me here...

If 110 of the 500 largest companies in the USA experience failures of systems vital to their operations, that will probably be BAD.

I'm guessing that those companies are mission-critical to the way of life of their employees, at a minimum. Most likely, any 110 of the top 500 are going to be pretty vital to the economic health of the USA.

So significant, mission-threatening problems in at least 110 of the Fortune 500 probably will effect us as a nation, don't you agree?

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

"Eight percent of the 152 Fortune 500 companies and 14 government agencies responding said they had severed relations with a supplier, customer or partner because of Year 2000 problems. This is the first time that such moves have been reported."

Yes. The flight to quality and competitive Y2K advantage begins.

There WILL be an economic impact at the very least. Expect layoff Q4 as those Foutune 500 companies who KNOW they won't make it, tighten the corporate belts.

Should be an indicator to watch. Also last minute mergers.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

I agree, Nabi, that it could be bad *economically*. But that doesn't mean that survival-level preparations are necessary.

As for things being fixed over the holiday weekend. I doubt any polly (as defined in these discussions, not in the general populace) believes that.

It could be that the mission-critical system that fails for the 22% of companies will be their financial accounting system. Whether that shuts down the company depends on a lot of factors.

"Everyone agrees there will be some sort of disruptions," Rubin said. "The real issue is going to be how you maintain business continuity."

Rubin is right on the money. Keeping the business running despite glitches and system failures is the focus of most companies.

-- Buddy (.@...), May 19, 1999.

I concur with Buddy. Essential or critical systems definitions are are more encompassing in the business environment than in the practical understanding that "this must function for us to operate."

Businesses exist not to make a product, but to make money. That is their sole purpose. Consequently, systems designated as critical may include those that improve a company's margin. Should these systems fail to be properly remediated at century's turn, they could reflect in a downturn of the comapany's revenue, but not necessairly their capacity to operate, at least for the short term.

Therefore they could "operate" without all of their systems remediated. Now granted, reduced margins caused by lost productivity, supply chain problems, lack of customer demand and other factors attributed to Y2k can and will drag businesses down.

But hopefully, a reevaulation of systems, even within the critical realm, is being done by those businesses behind the curve, so that they can continue to operate, even at a diminished capacity, until problem systems are brought back online.

Of course, that could be a big hope.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 19, 1999.

Here's some info from Dr. Edward Yardeni's site about compliance efforts of different sectors of the economy: http://www.yardeni.com/public/analysis.pdf The figure are based on percent of Y2K budget spent by S&P 500 Companies through 1998 Q4. Using percentage of budget spent has been called into question by some people, so consider these figures more as a guide to how sectors stand relative to each other, and not so much as to how close each sector is to completing its own Y2K projects. Financials 64%
Capital Goods 56%
Energy 55%
Consumer Staples 54%
Consumer Cyclicals 54%
S&P 500 53%
Transportation 53%
Communications Services 49%
Utilities 49%
Health Care 45%
Basic Materials 44%
Technology 42% Also see this by Dr. Yardeni from May 1999: http://www.webcom.com/yardeni/y2kbook_part2.html#2.B5.1 "Will Corporate America & Canada Beat Y2K Deadline?"

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 19, 1999.

Buddy,

I agree, Nabi, that it could be bad *economically*. But that doesn't mean that survival-level preparations are necessary.

You seem to think that all "doomers" believe Y2K will be an ELE (extinction level event). Just for the record, TEOTWAWKI does not equal ELE. But I certainly believe that a serious, worldwide global depression (which appears inevitable at this point) is the end of the world as most of us have known it.

Buddy, I certainly believe we who have the understanding and opportunity should take full advantage of knowing what is likely headed our way and prepare for it. I do believe that this includes "survival-level preparations," as you call them. If you do not, that is your choice.

But the polly arguments I see made here so often that "it doesn't matter what fails, we'll find a way to get around it" is wishful thinking, at best. Rubin is right, but you are assuming that almost every business will be able to continue running somehow. What if they can't? What if some (or most) who aren't prepared (and the percentage keeps rising as we get closer to 1/1/00) end up failing?

Are you prepared for that possibility? I am, and because of that the polly's have labeled me and those like me as mind-virus infected psychopaths. I'm getting a little tired of the debunking crowd and their modus operandi.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

And, of course, you can point to the hundreds of companies that failed as a result of these Y2K related failures that have already occurred? Well, how about the dozens of failed companies? Ok, how about one single company that has closed its doors solely because of Y2K. Cmon, give me one.

Now doesn't that count as good news?

If you take the trouble to read Robert Ringers book - Looking Out for Number One - you will find a discussion of what he calls the LINE DRAWING GAME. Everybody plays the game - drawing lines in the sand and saying "my side is OK but your side is evil". The compliance game is identical. Some folks draw a line around core apps and say "My side is fine, the rest doesn't count". Some draw a bigger circle and say "these count but the other stuff doesn't". And then some places (I work in one) draw their circle around everything imaginable (even the blasted old fax machine) and say "We took it all in to test and you guys are doofs". So I really don't put much stock in these reports - all you really have to go on is stuff from places like Gartner that have access to lots of places and a better idea of what is going on overall than any individual report or company can have as to what is important or not. And a whole LOT of stuff really is not mission critical - the boss may like having a sorted report of everything done all day yesterday on his desk each morning - but it may not really help him do anything but see which person turned in the most work the day before. But he likes it, so lists it as "mission critical". And that is the way it works most places - they poll the mid level execs, and those boys tell them what they consider "critical". Yeah, right, like they aren't going to put their favorite reports up high on the list as mission critical apps - EVEN THOUGH AN IMPARTIAL OBSERVER WOULD SAY THE REPORT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CONTINUED RUNNING OF THE DEPARTMENT.

Get my point? This sort of stuff is not meaningful in terms of IT departments - and some have already been caught exaggerating the Y2K figures to get more money for IT expenses. Now before everybody falls over wondering if I have gone to being a D&G type - I do think the reports from utilities can be trusted - as they are dealing primarily with HARDWARE - and hardware does not leave much room for waffling. Either you care what date the monitor reports, or you don't. No middle management types confusing the issue.

So I accept the figures from outside oversight groups - with reservations, and the figures from primarily hardware related industries, but I don't think I want to take any sort of self- reporting figures for non hardware related outfits -good or bad- without heavy reservations.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

Nabi, that's 22% of the 152 in the survey not 500. Your numbers are off.

Diane, There WILL be an economic impact at the very least. Agreed but the degree of that impact is not known.

"Expect layoff Q4 as those Foutune 500 companies who KNOW they won't make it, tighten the corporate belts." This is a very stupid statement. A company doesn't KNOW any future events, they can guess and try to hedge their bets. I don't believe that ANY company will begin layoffs during Q4 because they think they will fail. This is absurb. If anything, the opposite is true, they may hire additional folks to cover contingencies and lower risks.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 19, 1999.

Maria,

I run a business, and you my dear are full of shit!

-- Jay (JohnQ@public.com), May 19, 1999.

Maria: what makes you think that if the entire 500 were polled the numbers would be any better?

Paul: there has been several news stories on companies that folded as a result of y2k. Kevin probably has the links.

-- a (a@a.a), May 19, 1999.

Jay I feel sorry for your employees. You would lay them off three months before a business failure would (possibly) occur. Wow! We knew (definite occurence) that a contract was not going to be renewed and didn't lay off the people until two weeks after the contract ended. We tried to make some other things happen before doing that to employees. I may be full of shit but I least I think before acting on possibilities.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 19, 1999.

"We tried to make some other things happen before doing that to employees. I may be full of shit..."

Maria, I bet ya 10lb of beef jerky that you did not notify the potentially-affected employees until the last minute, so as not to incite panic, leaving them little time to prepare financially and emotionally for the layoff. 10 lbs.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), May 19, 1999.

For the record, then, Maria admits she may be full of shit.

-- Prometheus (fire@for.man), May 19, 1999.

Maria,

I never said what I'd do or what I have done. You only speculate, as usual. Go back under your rock. This is the real world.

-- Jay (JohnQ@public.com), May 19, 1999.

No Jay, you only added some thought provoking comment to move the discussion forward, right? Why don't you go hide back under the rock?

Lisa, as soon as I knew I let the employees affected by this know. Thanks for your concern.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 19, 1999.

And you all thought only pollys were trolls.

-- troll (polly@troll.city), May 19, 1999.

Maria - I don't know why it is so hard for you to imagine that some companies will choose downsizing as the contingency solution to anticipated Y2K problems, especially if they are operating very marginally and anticipating serious problems meeting payroll. Ramping up isn't always an option.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 19, 1999.

Maria probably employs illegal aliens.

-- Jay (JohnQ@public.com), May 19, 1999.

Buddy,

"It could be that the mission-critical system that fails for the 22% of companies will be their financial accounting system...."

What nonsense! What do you think they set about fixing first?

-- remediate (billing@first.fool), May 19, 1999.

"I don't believe that ANY company will begin layoffs during Q4 because they think they will fail. This is absurb. If anything, the opposite is true, they may hire additional folks to cover contingencies and lower risks."

No Maria, a company would begin layoffs to AVOID failure. That's the point.

A company would layoff "nonessential personnel" first. Then, they would consolidate duties and layoff essential personnel, adding more stress and responsibility to fewer employees. Then they would evaluate whether or not in is in the interests of the business to continue operations. Some will, some wont.

A small to medium sized business wont hire more employees to handle contingencies because that would directly impact on every other area of their ability to continue to do business. It's a vicious cycle and that additional burden could bury the business as easily as a direct y2k disruption.

I've had the great fortune of being laid off a number of times. Once, simply because a very well know parent corp of the company I worked for decided one day they didn't want to own the moneymaking, award-winning, successful advertising agency I worked for. They closed the advertising portion, the customer service portion, even the kitchen. They kept the MIS portion.

This was a viable, successful business that died because of a decision made a few thousand miles away because (and this comes from me an inside source directly connected to the situation) there was a clash of personalities between the prez of the corp and the prez of the agency. That clash inevitably meant the loss of about 2000+ jobs. Did I mention we were not only successful, but also profitable? If you're interested in the whole story send me an e-mail. I tell you this because I just want you to know that stranger things in business have happened : )

Bottom line? A business hires employees based upon additional business needs which comes down to additional success or a windfall. A business doesn't hire employees to fight to stay alive. It works in reverse. Otherwise, upsizing would be a more predominant term today when a business suffers and not downsizing.

In many cases a business failure wont happen in a month, or two months or a year but some businesses will fail.

The questions left are unanswerable. What will happen to the economy? Will new businesses emerge to pick up the slack and offer employment to the affected workers? Will I be someone who is affected by a layoff? Will I work for a company that profits through windfalls created by the disruptions?

As a self-employed person I can tell you I fully expect to be affected by a disruption in the economy. Advertising and marketing budgets ALWAYS drop during a recession or even periods where just the perception of a bad economy exists. I expect to see some of my clients go under because they viewed Y2k as a nonevent with no need for contingency or preparation. If they don't go under they may manage to get through with a smaller staff and lower budgets. Either way, I'm out a client. However, I do believe that some businesses WILL profit and do well under this time. The trick is to target them and prepare for times when money may not be coming in.

Be prudent and prepare. You can lose a job for a whole lot of reasons and a lot of them have nothing to do with a business operating under normal logic.

Mike ======================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 19, 1999.

Remediate,

They may have started on the fin. acctg. sys. first, but that doesn't mean it will make it. It's usually the most complicated and date-sensitive software a company has.

-- Buddy (.@...), May 19, 1999.

P.S. Look at power companies. They say that the power will be OK, but most are still working on their MIS/Acctg. systems.

-- Buddy (.@...), May 19, 1999.

I wonder what one of the discussions sounds like in the *romantic languages"?

Aw but mon Cherie.... you are such a bountiful troll!

-- spun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 19, 1999.

My business is about to take a crap. Quick, hire more people so they can get unemployment benefits. BWAAAAAhahahahahahahahaha

-- Anti-chainsaw (Tree@hugger.com), May 19, 1999.

Mike - I know of a coal mine that a top company exec spent 18 years trying to close. President of the company finally got tired of him trying to close a profitable mine, and told him to take early retirement. Now why did he spend 18 years doing this - and wind up going home at 54? Because he had been superintendant of this mine back when he had been working at the company for about eight or ten years - and was pulling some stuff about overtime that was strictly against the union contract - playing favorites and such. Well the union steward talked to him about it, nothing was done, so they took up a greviance case against him and won. Man was such a goofball that he spent the rest of his career trying to make them lose their jobs.

Logic has little to do with some business decisions. And logic will have little to do with a lot of stuff on the report as "mission critical". I think I will trust Gartner on this one.

And I really have not heard of any company closing its doors due to Y2K. Plenty of rumors about mergers being driven by Y2K fears, but only one or two of those are actually confirmable. And merger is not equivalent to closure.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

12% August; 16% November; 22% April. Did anyone else project out the trend line on this? It looks (roughly) like 35-40% by January 1, 2000. Consider also that most of your respondents are probably in better shape (self-selection of good news), and it's time to plant some more taro and bananas.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), May 19, 1999.

Mike I see you point of view. I guess we'll find out for sure in October.

Anti-chainsaw, LOL .... ah, it's not worth it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 19, 1999.

Paul and others (heck, myself) are right that both "mission-critical" and "compliance" are hilariously crude terms. 'Course, the POSSIBLE implications cut all ways, from the polly to the doomer perspective.

My own IT experience suggests strongly that the posters to this forum are way above average competence and, frankly, intelligence. It seems we are fairly well spread between competent and incompetent organizations, if we take most posters at face value. It is possible, though not certain, that the preponderance of doomers roughly reflects a greater percentage of poor orgs, but I admit that is wild speculation.

What I do consider reasonable speculation is this:

.... most organizations are ALWAYS more-or-less in a state of disarray, desperately trying to put out yesterday's fires, no rational budgeting or metrics, but a super fine-tuned system of "politics" internally. And, yes, remarkably, most things do work somehow sometime. But Dilbert ain't a raging success for nothing.

.... my experience says that organizations are usually over-optimistic about completing ANYTHING. Therefore, it seems highly plausible that 22% or more won't finish (U.S., much larger percentage, 60%? worldwide), since they are actually CONFESSING to this themselves as early as May, 1999. I would say that, internally, they probably don't expect to finish before 4/2000 AT THE EARLIEST, or they would have "believed" that they could still finish by 1/1/2000.

.... While we can't understand the impacts of not finishing and/or being "almost finished", especially since Dilbert's org may be remediating everything including the fax machine; remediating systems more or less randomly; or ONLY remediating the fax machine, we can assume that the overall remediation effort is more-or-less weird.

.... Occam's Razor might suggest that reports like this explain why we aren't seeing a lot of compliance declarations (Paul: didn't you predict three months ago that April to June would be full of ACTUAL compliance declarations: hey, that wasn't so long ago)? Namely, they ain't DONE. And, while it be possible that we'll see a great rush later this year (or at least a speed-up of the completion curve), it is at least as possible that many orgs will find their projects churning haplessly, like most software projects. IMO.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 19, 1999.