Will Y2K cures be worse than the problem?

Updated 10:20 AM ET December 8, 1999

ZDNet News LONDON -- Some cures for the millennium computer bug might do more harm than good.

With just about every big company in the world spending millions of dollars on new equipment to thwart the bug, experts are worrying that Y2K solutions themselves might actually lead to crippling computer crashes.

Ironically, companies which are dutifully protecting their businesses from the bug, are unwittingly exposing them to problems induced by new systems.

It is a truism in the information technology business that new projects are always late and over budget. It often takes weeks, sometimes months, to shake down new computers and make sure they provide the functions promised.

"One of the major (millennium computer bug) problems is the need to change IT systems, a challenge at the best of times that often run over budget and over time. Introducing new systems in a limited time-frame introduces all sorts of new problems," said the Y2K pressure group Taskforce 2000.

Spending to cure the millennium computer bug has been huge.

The U.S. information technology research company Gartner Group has said companies around the world would have to spend between $300 billion and $600 billion to fix the problem. IDC, another U.S. high technology consultancy, estimated in a report last month that by the end of 1999, companies will have spent $250 billion finding, replacing, rewriting, testing and documenting computer code infected by the bug.

And all because programmers in the 1980s used two digits to record dates on software, knowing that this could trip over the two zeros in 2000 and cause computers to crash or spew out corrupt data.

Rash of crashes There has already been a rash of computer systems crashes which have damaged businesses.

Earlier this year the food distributor International Multifoods of Chicago saw its business disrupted when it installed a new Y2K-ready computer system. It failed to gel with the company's traditional order system and crippled business for weeks.

In Britain, the china and crystal glass maker Royal Doulton said it lost between 10 million and 12 million pounds ($16.25 million to $19.50 million) in sales following the failure of its new warehouse management software installed to ready the company for the millennium bug. The new software was unable to handle orders for sets of five plates for the U.S. market and recognized only orders for single items.

The U.S. confectioner Hershey Foods saw its traditional Halloween business trashed when its new computer using software from SAP AG and Siebel Systems disrupted its supply system.

Experts also point to computer crashes at Whirlpool Corp, Allied Waste Industries, and Waste Management Inc. Procter & Gamble Co, giant maker of Tide detergent, Crest toothpaste and Pampers diapers, said last month it had problems with its the global database system called SourceOne.

Failure to analyze systems Peter Barnes, general manager of Survive! International, said information technology problems are often triggered by a failure to correctly analyze system requirements.

"Where the same failures have been applied to Y2K remediation or avoidance projects, the impact of failure is likely to be greater particularly where a company believes it has built an effective replacement for a non-compliant system but finds that the new system fails," Barnes said.

Survive! is an independent international user group for business which advises on preparing for problems from unforeseen disasters such as computer failure, the loss of key personnel and infrastructure from fires, floods and terrorist attacks.

Mitul Mehta, Senior European Research Manager at technology consultant Frost & Sullivan, said that many businesses which are spending large sums on anti-Y2K repairs are also deciding to upgrade their computers generally at the same time.

"That's where I see problems. They're saying we might as well put in e-commerce and web-based supply chain offerings, data warehousing and business intelligence etcetera," Mehta said.

"This means exposing systems to a whole set of applications and whole new way of doing things."

Mehta believes that this behavior is typical at medium to large companies in the retail, information technology and telecommunications businesses.

Some say smooth sailing Fons Kuijpers of the PA Consulting Group is much more sanguine about the problem.

Most companies have completed Y2K remediation work with plenty of time to spare, according to Kuijpers.

"I personally don't think there's going to be a massive problem," Kuijpers said.

Does he believe the much-hyped millennium bug problem is more of a damp squib than potential disaster?

"I think that's a fair assessment. There will be mishaps but they will be fairly minor, not as disastrous as people were predicting when the problem first emerged. Companies have though found significant problems which undetected and unfixed would have impacted on operations in a significant manner," Kuijpers said.

Tim Johnson, consultant at the technology researcher Ovum, is also on the sunny side of the issue.

"We have seen companies trying to install new systems rather rapidly -- Hershey was one even though it was not directly Y2K related. They've been trying to install systems too quickly and had serious problems," said Johnson.

"The evidence is that this is a manageable bit of aggravation in the developed world. There's a good bet that something nasty will happen somewhere; more likely in the developing rather than developed world," Johnson said.

-- freddie (freddie@thefreloader.com), December 08, 1999

Answers

This is a given...just ask Microshaft how many times they have released service packs to repair bugs in previsous service packs, and how many times they have had to release "Hot Fix" patches a couple days after service packs come out.

They cant even make a small PATCH (service pack) without having to fix it several times....and you can bet that stuff is WELL tested before the public gets it.

I play online video games (like Quake, Tribes, Unreal, etc). These gaming companies cater to the HARDEST TO PLEASE croud of software buyers there is. You screw up here, they let you know, and dont soon forget. These game companies perform BETA test after BETA test on their software before it goes to the public..because in the past they have been RAILED by there audience for releasing software for even MINOR bugs (after all, you are messing with people's entertainment here). Even after the HIGHLY EXTENSIVE testing and reparing, some serious bugs can pop up in various places.

The point of that long blurb, is to say that just because something has been HEAVILY tested, doesn't mean ALL the bugs were found and fixed. Any normal programmer EXPECTS hundreds of bug reports after releaseing NEW, TESTED software.

-- C. Hill (pinionsmachine@hotmail.com), December 08, 1999.

C. Hill -- I like it, Microshaft. Did you make this up, or is it a typo?

-- Larry (cobol.programmer@usa.net), December 08, 1999.

Too many weak links. Danger.

I hope this article isn't saying co's would be better off if they hadn't done y2k remediation! At 1st I thought it may have been (being a ZDnet piece), but the line above saying,
Does he believe the much-hyped millennium bug problem is more of a damp squib than potential disaster?

"I think that's a fair assessment. There will be mishaps but they will be fairly minor, not as disastrous as people were predicting when the problem first emerged. Companies have though found significant problems which undetected and unfixed would have impacted on operations in a significant manner," Kuijpers said.

indicates not. Read that again. This Kuijpers fellow saliently contradicts himself, yet obviously he cannot see it. Too many weak links, simultaneously.

Also, re. the "much-hyped" already shows the sheep bias, the ever-present bias of quote, 'journalists.'
MUCH hyped? Where? Almost every public figure is downplaying the risk by a water-dilution factor of 2,000! And so it goes.

Read about such Y2K software remediation failures:

Deutsche Bank Suffers a Computer Shutdown

A bank. Oops!

-- millbug (hype@where.com), December 08, 1999.