As I said Mr. Decker -- you are a hypocrite or blind -- you choose which one. If you decided to use Computerworld as you source of information for a Y2K research, why use only a BS article about IT professionals who will be happy to spend a night that comes around as often as what, once in 1000 years, away from their families sitting at work. Why not include the article by Mr. Ulrich. Oh, I understand, you rosy glasses prevented you from finding it. Overall, I give you C- for the effort.

Ready or not, Y2K won't go away for any of us.

By William Ulrich 11/08/99

I was blissfully sequestered from the year 2000 problem last week while working on the creation of a new organization in an unrelated field. Like my fellow consultants, I have been knee-deep in the year 2000 since the beginning and relish the thought of focusing my efforts on different pursuits. The thought of not hearing about Y2K for a few days was a relief. When I got back to town, reality returned with a vengeance.

I am in the midst of a research project that requires digging through year 2000-readiness statements for dozens of multinational corporations. Many companies are addressing the issue effectively, but their disclosure statements read like something out of a legal nightmare. Perhaps this is because no one can guarantee the stability of systems, equipment, facilities, infrastructures, interfaces, suppliers or business partners as the year 2000 unfolds.

The most interesting aspect of this research focused on the companies that really aren't prepared. Several organizations doubled or quadrupled Y2K budgets over the past year. Others have done little supply-chain research beyond the obligatory letters. Some companies have contingency plans, but many more are still working on them. Most troubling are those companies claiming to have contingency plans limited to anticipated problems, like unprepared suppliers. Maintaining business continuity in the face of the unexpected is a core principle of every good contingency plan.

One thing my research assistant and I discovered is that few companies are willing to speak about Y2K directly. Forget free and open disclosure. Forget about trying to convince us that they are in good shape. Many people said they aren't allowed to have conversations with outsiders  period. No problem. We checked their Web sites, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure statements and several other sources. The information we found was fascinating. Unfortunately, few people have actually dug this deeply into the year 2000 compliance status of this many companies. One or two dogs in the group would be no big deal. But when company after company showed up as a high-risk candidate, my concerns began to grow. As I sat in my office contemplating the lack of preparedness at these companies, I received a phone call from a friend who markets Y2K remediation services. He told me that his factory has more year 2000 remediation work now than it ever had before.

One company recently sent in 50 million lines of source code to be fixed by year's end. More surprising was the allegedly compliant financial institution that just sent in 20 million lines of code to be made compliant. My friend mentioned these facts in passing. He wasn't trying to impress me. The fact that companies still have millions of lines of code to fix reinforces the fact that some very large companies are in serious trouble.

The underlying theme found in these disclosure statements, regardless of how well companies have prepared themselves for the year 2000, is that their executives take Y2K more seriously than most of the rest of us. Virtually every company is concerned about how their suppliers and business partners will fare. And all of them state that Y2K might materially impact their ability to deliver products, services and strong profits should something go wrong.

Cynics claim that companies are bound to consider Y2K from a worst-case perspective. Spelling out worst-case scenarios in your SEC disclosure statement gives a company legal leverage later. Maybe, but I believe executives are being forthcoming about the risks. In spite of the happy talk from industry associations, the federal government and public relations firms, the year 2000 won't go away. Fortunately, most corporations already know this. It's too bad that the rest of the world doesn't. William Ulrich is president of Tactical Strategy Group Inc. and co-founder of Triaxsys Research LLP. Contact him at tsginc@cruzio.com. To make it easy for you to find the original use the following link. http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/all/991108CAD6 Best Regards,

-- Brooklyn (MSIS@cyberdude.com), November 09, 1999

Answers

As one of the people that actually studies the 10 - Q files, it is a meager source of information. Some big corps are providing very little information and those are the ones that don't get it. Or they Get it to such a point that they could compromise their legal or business interests by being frank with there disclosures.

As these will be legal documents in the event of a lawsuit one would think that a bit more effort could be taken in drawing up a comprehencive document. It doesn't even have to have all the information, just a bit more effort, but no.

The last quarter of the year for the 10 - Q filings is happening now.

The sharks are going to be circling

Some of the 10 - Qs for last quarter

A long list of SEC Filings

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 10, 1999.

That's true, 10-Q's are a poor source of meaningful information. A team of corporate lawyers simply are not going to provide you with a silver bullet with which to strike at them. As far as Decker, he's a pablum-spewer, a reader of Tom Clancy novels, a bore, a "man who likes a warm fire on a cold night." He's a shill, nothing more. Always divisive, always the gainsayer, desperately trying to maintain credibility while oozing condescension, he struggles to quell his animus, and fulfill his misbegotten mission.

-- Spidey (in@jam.classactionsuit), November 10, 1999.

test

-- atq3e (afsdg@adf.aae), November 10, 1999.

Yes, and I'm seriously considering removing him from the payroll.

He came highly recommended, but is obviously not performing to specs.

-- J. Rendon (dude@with.contract), November 10, 1999.

And people wonder why I lose patience from time to time....

I use "Yahoo" as a news "engine." During a long lunch yesterday, I snipped some articles from there and posted them here. Frankly, I did not see the article by Mr. Ulrich. You could have simply posted it here without the personal commentary....

Had I found Mr. Ulrich's article, I would have posted it... and I would have expected you to find the dark cloud behind the silver lining. According to Mr. Ulrich... "I believe executives are being forthcoming about the risks." This statement contradicts the common pessimist argument that "everyone" is lying about Y2K.

I know it take mental effort, Brooklyn, but not everyone thinks and feels the way you do. It may be a startling concept, but take your time with it.

As for "Spidey," what can I say about a person who adopts the nom du plume of a comic book character. I will say this, "web slinger." Your choice reflects your cartoonish writing.

To the original CW article, no one is saying EVERYONE is happy about working the rollover. It simply points out a some people want to be "on the job" particularly given the effort reaching the "finish line." Personally, I'll be working the rollover and will not mind a bit.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 10, 1999.

I recieved the following e-mail, and since I want to respond, but do not see the original posting, I decided to include the e-mail before my responce.

"Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net) responded to a message you left in the TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) bboard:

Subject: Response to My dear friend Decker - you are a hypocrite.

And people wonder why I lose patience from time to time....

I use "Yahoo" as a news "engine." During a long lunch yesterday, I snipped some articles from there and posted them here. Frankly, I did not see the article by Mr. Ulrich. You could have simply posted it here without the personal commentary....

Had I found Mr. Ulrich's article, I would have posted it... and I would have expected you to find the dark cloud behind the silver lining. According to Mr. Ulrich... "I believe executives are being forthcoming about the risks." This statement contradicts the common pessimist argument that "everyone" is lying about Y2K.

I know it take mental effort, Brooklyn, but not everyone thinks and feels the way you do. It may be a startling concept, but take your time with it.

As for "Spidey," what can I say about a person who adopts the nom du plume of a comic book character. I will say this, "web slinger." Your choice reflects your cartoonish writing.

To the original CW article, no one is saying EVERYONE is happy about working the rollover. It simply points out a some people want to be "on the job" particularly given the effort reaching the "finish line." Personally, I'll be working the rollover and will not mind a bit."

It is interesting that you decided to mention that Mr. Ulrich thinks that executives are being forthcoming. One thing you failed to mention is how or why they (executives) are being forthcoming in their 10-Q disclosures. As Mr. Ulrich puts it: "Cynics (pollies - my comment) claim that companies are bound to consider Y2K from a worst- case perspective. Spelling out the worst-case scenarios in your SEC disclosure statement giives a company legal levarage later. May be, but ..."

So, in fact, this statement contradict the common "optimist" argument that SEC disclosures are just a CUA (cover your arse) move. I do agree with you, Ken. It does take a mental effort to realize; however, Mr. Ulrich thinks the way I do and not the other way around.

P.S. On the personal note, my preparation is almost over. Missing items are: French champagne -- 3 bottles. Black caviar -- 4 Oz. Salmon roe -- 3 lbs.

-- Brooklyn (MSIS@cyberdude.com), November 10, 1999.

"And people wonder why I lose patience from time to time...."

They do? Golly gee whiz, Mr. Decker, I didn't know you were that important. It never occurred to me to wonder, I'll certainly do that from now on, yes sir. Let's not make Mr. Decker lose his patience, boys and girls.

-- Sick (of@you.assholes), November 10, 1999.

"Personally, I'll be working the rollover and will not mind a bit."

Not for me, you won't.

-- J. Rendon (dude@with.contract), November 10, 1999.

Brooklyn...

One more time... slowly. Ulrich is just another IT guy making a general commentary. What is signficant... Ulrich is NOT calling Y2K the end of the world as we know it. Whatever the motivations, he thinks corporations are producing "realistic" assessments. Ulrich does not talk about subsistence farming as a new career or the need to store copious amounts of food.

In simple terms, I cannot post every "think piece" written about Y2K. In fact, I may go days without checking the "news" engine. I don't read CW cover to cover... though I do browse PC Week on a semi- regular basis.

When I cut-and-paste news, I do not apply a litmus test. It can be positive or negative. You can find thousands of articles I've missed or decided not to post. It is not my personal responsibility to ensure the TB 2000 forum receives comprehensive news updates every day.

If you actually want to debate something substantial, just ask. If not, stick to ordering your NYE appetizers and don't waste the forum's time trying to pick a fight with me.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 10, 1999.

Oh boy, Ken, you do get worked up, don't you? You want to discuss something of substance? Read the above article again. If you read carefully, you might find following lines:

"...One company recently sent in 50 million lines of source code to be fixed by year's end. More surprising was the allegedly compliant financial institution that just sent in 20 million lines of code to be made compliant. My friend mentioned these facts in passing. He wasn't trying to impress me. The fact that companies still have millions of lines of code to fix reinforces the fact that some very large companies are in serious trouble. "

Is it substantial enough for you? And BTW, can you show me a least one post where I claim Y2K to be TEOTWAWKI? Another question -- do you consider the above article not to be worthy attention? It is just too convenient to post articles that agree with you. So far I have not seen you posting something like the above piece.

Another thing, claiming that you rarely read news or professional publications just shows that at best  you have an uninformed opinion about the future. As for me, well I do read Computerworld from cover to cover. I also read InfoWorld, Internet World, Oracle Magazine, and Software Development.

-- Brooklyn (MSIS@cyberdude.com), November 10, 1999.

(laughter)

You are light work, Brooklyn... nothing to break a sweat over. Another "my friend's sister's husband works with this guy who...." Some companies will not be ready for Y2K. Some will fail. Companies fail every day... why should next year be any different?

To answer your question... no, a rumor is not substantial enough for me. Let's look at reports from the FDIC on the Y2K readiness of financial institutions. I do read those.

The above article is fine... post it as many times as you like. Just spare me the idiotic name calling. Why don't you take responsibility for providing the forum with ALL relevant Y2K news? Until you claim this responsibility, I will not you accountable for every story you miss. Why not extend me the same courtesy?

Finally, I said nothing about "rarely" reading news or professional journals. I am not an IT professional... so I do not read all the IT trade rags. Do you think reading "InfoWorld" gives you some special insight on the future? Sorry, Brooklyn, I didn't realize InfoWorld covered economics, politics, social trends, environmental concerns, physical infrastructure... (laughter)

Are you another of those IT guys who thinks they are smarter than everybody else because they can sling code? Oh, c'mon, you know the type... "If I ran this company...."

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 10, 1999.

Mr Decker Sir,

You are a big gun. Don't waste ammo on a field mouse. Even a N'yark field mouse.

Keep up the thoughtfull commentary on y2k.....you are quickly becoming the only moderate person worth reading on this forum.

-- Thnx (to@decker.now), November 10, 1999.

"You are light work, Brooklyn... nothing to break a sweat over. Another "my friend's sister's husband works with this guy who...." "

I like the way you debate, Ken. So you do not care that this statement was published in the trade journal. Since there is no name of the friend who provided the information, this information is worthless? Doesnt the article include the name and e-mail address of the author? Why dont you just e-mail him requesting the confirmation of this information? Please make sure that you post the answer on this forum. I will not do it myself because with this statement Mr. Ulrich has put his credibility on the line, and, therefore, I believe it to be truthful.

"Some companies will not be ready for Y2K. Some will fail. Companies fail every day... why should next year be any different? "

I guess what you are trying to say is that Y2K will be business as usual? The rate of corporate failures will remain the same as in 1999? I would not bet my money if I were you. Can I point you to SBA research, which states that 75% of small businesses have accepted a FOF strategy?

To answer your question... no, a rumor is not substantial enough for me. Let's look at reports from the FDIC on the Y2K readiness of financial institutions. I do read those.

Sure, why not. Here is an excerpt from FIL (financial institution letter) 74-98: 

TO: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SUBJECT: Confidentiality of Year 2000 Assessment Rating

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in partnership with state banking regulators, recently completed initial on-site Year 2000 assessments of all state non-member banks. A number of insured financial institutions have asked whether they may disclose to the public the rating assigned to their institution. FDIC regulations strictly prohibit such a disclosure. Information from Year 2000 assessments are governed by the same rules of confidentiality that apply to FDIC examinations for safety and soundness, compliance, information systems, and trust activities. Under Part 309 of the FDIC's rules and regulations, disclosure of reports of examination, or any information contained in them, is strictly prohibited. Accordingly, institutions may not disclose results from Year 2000 assessments just as they may not disclose other types of examination information. You can find it at http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/1998/fil9874.html

I wonder what do they have to hide???

"The above article is fine... post it as many times as you like. Just spare me the idiotic name-calling. Why don't you take responsibility for providing the forum with ALL relevant Y2K news? Until you claim this responsibility, I will not you accountable for every story you miss. Why not extend me the same courtesy? Finally, I said nothing about "rarely" reading news or professional journals. I am not an IT professional... so I do not read all the IT trade rags. Do you think reading "InfoWorld" gives you some special insight on the future? Sorry, Brooklyn, I didn't realize InfoWorld covered economics, politics, social trends, environmental concerns, physical infrastructure... (laughter)"

The interesting thing is  those rugs do cover economics, politics, social trends and physical infrastructure. Do have to admit that environmental concerns are missing from the list  I guess they will have to work on it.

>Are you another of those IT guys who thinks they are smarter than >everybody else because they can sling code? Oh, c'mon, you know the >type... "If I ran this company...."

Yep, yep, yep  another one of those IT guys with Bachelor of Business Administration degree in Accounting and Master of Science degree in Information Systems. What can I possibly know about interconnection of business with IT, intermingled with politics and environmental concerns?

You have to try harder Decker.

-- Brooklyn (MSIS@cyberdude.com), November 10, 1999.

Ken

In my haste to comment on the Y2K disclosures I totally forgot to take a swipe at you.

Loosing my touch, but the time for that is gone.

But what you are saying is troubling, you find all your Y2K info from Yahoo???

And your opinion is valid conserning Y2K?

Now this is to laugh!

(chuckle)

For the most part the press has fallen flat on their faces in regards to Y2K. Serious investigation is virtually non existant. And I think you can imagine that I can dig up Y2K dirt. Why can't they? Or why won't they?

Or why won't they? How are people going to be informed by the pap that they send out? Even the William Ulrich article above can be improved, this is no way to educate the masses. Unless the masses can't be educated.

I would always take another look at your means of gathering information in regards to Y2K, garbage in garbage out.

And this isn't a cut against you, it is the truth.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 10, 1999.

I would always take another look at your means of gathering information in regards to Y2K, garbage in garbage out.

And this isn't a cut against you, it is the truth.

This from a guy who hangs here 24/7. Take your own advice, bud. StinkButt2000 isn't a good source of anything BUT garbage.

-- Super Polly (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), November 10, 1999.

SuperPoly -grip - get it soon!

How *does* one know the frames of anothers time spent, unless....alas you must be here 24/7 !!!

rephrase- SuperPoly -job - get one soon! It'll help, honest.

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), November 10, 1999.

This from a guy who hangs here 24/7. Take your own advice, bud. StinkButt2000 isn't a good source of anything BUT garbage.

-- Super Polly (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), November 10, 1999.

Tisk Tisk

I have Cable so the Net is on like the TV or Radio,,,, I don't watch TV.

Must suck having a dial in eh? Does mom restrict your access when you are bad, or eating the worms or insects? Sends you to bed early?

So sorry that you have to live with a 2x4 up your backside but most of us don't. Surgery would help you know *VBG* Let me know when it is out and I will send some Exlax so the defilement will go out the lower hole OK?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 11, 1999.