link

[Fair game warning]

By WIlliam Ulrich

11/29/99 Industry association and government spokesmen have proclaimed the Y2K problem dead.

People believe this because they ignore published status reports to the contrary, see no personal connection to the problem and listen to pundits while doing little research for themselves.

But when problems emerge, companies and governments will take the brunt of the criticism. Assessing the reality of the situation will allow organizations to respond to the public relations challenges ahead. Reality is different from what the media tell us.

In September, Cap Gemini America, an information technology consulting firm in New York, found that 44% of major companies wouldn't have their mission-critical systems compliant by January. A CIO magazine poll found that 81% of large companies weren't yet finished and that half the companies surveyed had no contingency plans. A National Federation of Independent Business study found that 40% of small businesses had done nothing about Y2K.

Where progress has been made, work completed to date remains in question. According to independent validation and verification (IV&V) studies by SEEC Inc. in Pittsburgh, the average mainframe or midrange system contains 510 date-related errors after remediation. A second study in February by Reasoning Inc. in Mountain View, Calif., found between 100 and 1,000 bugs in similar samplings. An unrelated study by SriSoft Corp. in Diamond Bar, Calif., in October discovered that testing catches 30% of Y2K bugs, while IV&V uncovers another 40% to 45%. This leaves 25% of the remaining bugs in a best-case scenario.

Statistics drawn from government hearings and Web sites paint a more detailed picture. Only 13.5% of small and midsize chemical and petroleum firms have completed Y2K preparations. The Food and Drug Administration said 4,053 high-risk biomedical devices remain noncompliant. More than half of all health care providers won't be ready. And 70% of schools are unprepared.

According to calculations found in a report by researcher Warren Bone at New York-based Westergaard.com Inc.'s Web site (www.wbn.com/y2ktimebomb/), only 75% of federal mission-critical systems will be finished by January, and the status of nonmission-critical systems remains unclear. Other reports found 13 states at risk for failures in federal benefit programs, 25% of U.S. counties with no Y2K plan, 63% of 911 call centers unprepared and Medicare provider payments facing delays.

Even best-case scenarios are imperfect. The Social Security Administration (SSA) began year 2000 efforts in 1989. In July, according to the Information Systems Accounting & Information Management Division, SSA found 1,565 year 2000 errors in mission-critical systems. Only 44% of these had been fixed as of October. SSA is still checking data and finalizing contingency plans.

What does this mean to consumers? In statements made in early November to CBS News, the State Department inspector general said, "80 countries are at moderate to high risk, and there will be failures at every economic level, in every region of the world." Nick Gogerty, an analyst at London-based International Monitoring, predicted in October that Y2K would lead to $1.1 trillion in damages worldwide, not including those from litigation and insurance costs. These costs, along with many inconveniences, will affect us next year.

Why is the government telling us that most industries are 100% Y2K-compliant when bug-free systems are a myth? The answer is that the government and selected industries don't want people to panic. But when things go wrong, people will demand answers.

What can organizations do when problems strike? First, consider that 80% of your customers expect no year 2000 problems at all. Second, don't believe your own industry hype about 100% compliance. Third, be polite and let them know we are all in this together -- for the long haul.

Most important, when future large-scale challenges arise, consider your industry's posture. The unrealistic Y2K performance expectations set by industry associations are unachievable. Finally, see if any of those high-priced public relations directors want to work your customer hot line in January. They may learn something about manipulating perceptions about matters they barely understand.

I'm mailing this to John Rendon.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), November 29, 1999

Answers

That's not actually bum html. I just like blue and underlining everything.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), November 29, 1999.

Good Post Lisa. It's become just a matter of time now.

-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), November 29, 1999.

There, that'll fix it.

lol Lisa...I've done way more than my share of html giant type, blue letters and underlining too : )

Stealth

-- Stealth Sysop (Home@TB2K.com), November 29, 1999.

For the record, Bill Ulrich is not making any "preps" as defined by this forum and feels the impact will be mostly economic.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 29, 1999.

For the record, Kenny boy, global Y2K economic consequences can (and probably will) soon become social and political disasters. If you don't think Y2K will be much of anything, why do you waste your time and ours on this forum?

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), November 29, 1999.

For the record, if economic conditions post-Y2K cost you your job, you very likely might wish you'd prepared in advance, rather than begging food pantries, families and friends for Rice-a-Roni and coffee.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), November 29, 1999.

Good post Lisa!

If I have to show just one of this week's articles to DGI (or even DWGI), this will be it. Maybe I can pick up a couple of extra cans of SPAM tonight...

Too bad more laymen don't read Computerworld...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), November 29, 1999.

Well, we've heard from Mr. Decker (if you can call it that), but what about Flint and Hoff? Where are the resident pollys on this one? Come on guys, what's your take on this? We've got some pretty big numbers here. Is this BS from ComputerWorld? ComputerWorld???

If you guys want to debunk something, start here.

I'm waiting. Tick... Tock... Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), November 29, 1999.

To the top...

Ooooohhh Flint... Ooooohhh Hoff... Still waiting... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), November 30, 1999.

OK, let me take the liberty of filling-in for our polly friends ...

CHERRI: "William Ulrich does not know what he is talking about. Lies, lies, all of it is lies. Everyhing is FIXED! Trust me, I KNOW that this is so. Honest!" [Actually, alhough this is what Cherri would say, the spelling would have been shot to hell.]

MARIA: "You doomers post silly stuff like this and completely ignore all the good news that abounds. Due to your screwed up memes."

HOFFMEISTER: "First of all, this is old data, this article was published last month. There has been much progress since then. Secondly, you have to understand that Y2K code fixing is different from non-Y2K code fixing, in that it does not have to follow any of the usual rules regarding remediation and testing. Finally, note that the author at no time actually can reference a Y2K failure that is occuring NOW with systems that are in production NOW. Therefore, this indicates that there will be few if any problems next year."

FLINT: "As the author himself admits, 100% bug-free systems are a myth anytime, and always have been. Yes, there will be some problems, but enough has been done to ensure that things will be good enough so that the average person will not experience any problems, even if computer professionals need to work long hours to fix the problems that turn up. [Insert approximately 10 paragraphs re-phrasing what Flint already said, here.]"

DEANO: "Duhhh. Surf's up."

Since Decker has already put in his weak post, I'll not put in an entry for him. But, honestly, I think that even I could do better than what he said. LOL!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 01, 1999.

KOS, perfect.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), December 01, 1999.

KOS

ROTFLMAO in a mud pit. BWHAHAHBWHAHHABHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH.

Awesome, *standing up, gaining control of laughter, rinsing mud off naked body.....wrapped in towel.....chuckling*

-- huzzad (karlacalif@aol.com), December 01, 1999.

The pollys don't respond because they've given up. Most of their garbage is just trolling anyway, which is thankfully deleted. We don't need their mindless drivel here, but I did like the fill-in, KOS. Awesome!!

-- (brett@miklos.org), December 01, 1999.

KOS,

LOL, I think you've got it. I really liked the "reported last month" part, as in 3 days ago!

brett,

Flint and Hoff haven't given up. Just a few days ago Hoff posted some long-winded analysis, that has since fallen off the bottom, that I really don't want to have to go find in the archive. I just find it very interesting that they are ignoring this post (both of them). ComputerWorld is highly respected. I've been in this business for 3+ decades, and CW has been in just about every office that I've ever worked in.

Come on Hoff. Come on Flint. We need to hear your "no problem" polly spin on this. Make us feel better!

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), December 01, 1999.

Well, well. I see that my old friend Flint has checked in tonight on another thread.

What's up with this, Flint??? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), December 01, 1999.

One more time. I see that Flint WAS on line not too long ago. Who knows where Hoff is...

Come on Flint, I really want to hear your comments on this one. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), December 04, 1999.

Don't hold your breath, Sysman. Like I said, they've pretty much given up. People now see them for the worthless trolls they are. I don't know why you want to waste your time reading their stupid polly drivel anyway.

-- (brett@miklos.org), December 04, 1999.