State Dept May 2001 Report: Year 2000 Lessons Learned : LUSENET : Grassroots Information Coordination Center (GICC) : One Thread

Whether you agree or disagree with the premise of this May 2001 State Department report that Y2K is "over", you may well find the report both interesting one and worth studying.

"Year 2000 Lessons Learned: Strategies for Successful Global Project Management"

Office of the Inspector General

U.S. State Department

Report No. 1-IT-008

May 2001

-- Paula Gordon (, July 13, 2001


Way to go, Paula. Good piece.

-- JackW (, July 13, 2001.

7/18/2001 Crossposting from TB2K at s=&postid=25532#post25532

....I hope to have a chance to post some comments concerning the substance of the report soon.

I also hope that others will post their comments concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the State Department report, along with other reports that have been issued. Other Federal government reports on on Y2K and Y2K lessons have been issued by the Government Accounting Office (September 2000), the President's Council, and the Senate Y2K Committee.

See Attachment 1 below for a thread from GICC on the President's Council Report.

A thread on the Senate Committee's Report can be found at the following GICC URL: [url] msg_id=003W2r[/url]

The Final Senate Y2K Committee report is dated February 29, 2000. (Pages 37-49 contain a list of Y2K glitches.) For the report itself, see: [url][/url]

A GICC thread concerning the IY2KCC's final report is below as Attachment 2.

GAO limited the primary focus of their report to IT system remediation efforts within Federal government agencies with very little attention to complex integrated systems or government regulatory and other responsibilities that extend to the private sector. I have included a thread from GICC on the GAO report as Attachment 4.

Attachment 1: (GICC Thread on the President's Council's Report

Y2K Final Report by President's Council [url][/url]

The President's Council has issued their final report. It's available at [url][/url] Here's an extract of the learnings and conclusion reported. I'd be interested to read your thoughts on these "principles" as well as what other "principles" or learnings you think they missed:

"The Y2K experience demonstrates the importance of a number of basic principles.

Principle 1 -- Top management needs to be involved in information technology decisions on an ongoing basis.

Information technology is increasingly at the heart of how organizations conduct their business and Y2K highlighted the value of having top management providing leadership in this area. In many companies, it was only when the Board of Directors or the CEO took ownership of the Y2K problem that sustained progress became evident. This was also true in some Federal agencies. Only senior management could make Y2K a top priority, even if that prioritization caused delays in other IT projects.

Principle 2 -- Organizations need to do a better job keeping track of and managing the technology they use and the functions that technology performs.

Y2K provided most large organizations a reason to conduct -- for the first time ever -- a comprehensive inventory of their information technology infrastructure and processes. Not surprisingly, organizations found that some systems could be discarded without any loss in productivity while others could easily be replaced with more efficient models. Inconsistent systems and processes were found to be just what they are -- impediments to efficient operations. In many cases, Y2K also generated a better understanding of the increasingly important role IT systems play in an organization's operations, including its critical dependency on systems outside the organization's boundaries.

Principle 3 - Contingency plans should be continually updated and tested.

It makes sense to have a contingency plan. It makes even more sense to have a contingency plan that is continually updated and tested. In exercising contingency plans in advance of the date change, companies found that "little things" in their plans could have resulted in more serious problems. Telephone numbers were out of date, locations were unknown or had changed, or personnel did not know how to operate manual back-up systems. Employees need to understand their role in a contingency plan and be trained to perform their duties in the context of the plan. The French, who were without power in December 1999, and the State of New Mexico, which dealt with a significant blackout on March 18, 2000, both attributed the success of their emergency responses to the contingency planning work they did in preparing for Y2K.

Principle 4 - Industry National Centers are an important resource for reconstitution of critical services.

In preparing for the possibility of Y2K failures, the Council considered what the Federal Government's appropriate role should be in restoring critical services. It concluded that entities closest to providing a service are the most knowledgeable and capable of restoring it (e.g., power plant operators know best how to restart a power plant). The National Information Centers set up by industries across the critical infrastructure to monitor possible Y2K failures during the rollover provided an important set of "help desks" in case problems occurred. The ability of companies to provide assistance to one another in an organized way will become increasingly important as industries become more interdependent and interconnected.

Principle 5 -- Full disclosure is critical to sustaining public confidence in the face of possible emergencies.

One side effect of the Internet explosion is the ease with which rumors, misinformation, and false assumptions spread across the country. The natural inclination of some to doubt the ability of the public to understand and respond appropriately to the facts and therefore to withhold information often creates a vacuum that is filled by statements from those who are less informed. The public's measured response to the wealth of Y2K information - both positive and negative - offered by the Council and its partners is a reminder of the importance of providing more, rather than less, information to the public when dealing with a critical issue.

Principle 6 -- Forming partnerships across traditional boundaries can be a tremendous asset in the drive to achieve a commonly held goal.

In addition to demonstrating how technology has contributed to the increasing interconnectedness of organizations, Y2K provided an excellent example of how organizations can benefit from working together to address major issues. Through its numerous working groups, the Council was able to bring the country's critical infrastructure industries together to increase the level of Y2K awareness and activity and, in several cases, to set benchmarks for completing Y2K work. In addition, the industry surveys done at the Council's request played a critical role in prodding laggard companies to match the progress of their peers as well as in increasing public confidence that the Y2K challenge would be met successfully.

The spirit of partnership extended to the political arena as well. Most people recognized early on that there was not a Democratic or Republican solution to the Y2K problem. From the passage of the bipartisan Year 2000 Information and Readiness and Disclosure Act to the working relationships that existed between the Council and the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem and the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittees on Science and Technology and Government Management, Information, and Technology, Y2K proved that people could reach across organizational and party lines to address an extraordinary challenge.

The experience of reaching across traditional boundaries, whether between the public and private sectors, the legislative and executive branches, or countries around the world can help us respond to other large-scale challenges in information technology, including efforts to protect key infrastructure systems from cyber-threats and malicious activity.


The Year 2000 problem was an extraordinary challenge for businesses and governments around the world that is not likely to be duplicated. The success that resulted from efforts to prepare systems for the date change is a tribute to the skill, dedication, and hard work of the countless professionals who made Y2K their cause.

The story of Y2K is one of diverse organizations -- industry associations, companies, and government agencies that often had opposing agendas and interests -- coming together to recognize the power of information sharing and collaboration to achieve a commonly held goal. In its two years of operation, the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion worked to serve as a catalyst and facilitator for this activity, which helped the United States make a smooth transition to the new millennium. "

-- Jan Nickerson (, April 03, 2000


For all the self-congratulatory, pat-yourself-on-the-back utterances, there is still one big "principle" that is yet unanswered: How come such countries as Russia, Italy, and Venezuela, who did next to nothing to remediate for y2k suffer no greater damage than those countries that did?

There's only one answer, as far as I'm concerned: they came up with some simple, excellent DELAYING strategy. Now if this is the stripping off of the last 2 digits, back-dating, some form of temporary window-fitting (with others with different pivots), who knows? But, something was done to TEMPORARILY quell the potential worldwide disaster. It worked.

When will these pigeons come home to roost? Again, who knows? But, I still feel there is a terrible price to pay for this put-off-the-day- of-reckoning finaggling--somewhere down the line.

-- wellesley (, April 03, 2000.


Until 1/1/00 there were standards--reliance on a simple 2-digit date ending on all dating applications to carry the day. Since 1/1/00 all standards have been tossed in the ash can. To "get by," companies, organizations, and countries everywhere resorted to a hodge-podge of temporary fixes. We had setting the clocks back, date stripping, all kinds of windows fixes with all kinds of different pivots; we had splicing of 2-digit year dates with 4-digit permanent fixes, and God knows what else.

I guess that's why I liken y2k to railroad derailments. With all of these temporary fixes thrown together--and embellished by patch after patch after patch from the software companies--it's much like splicing stretches of railroad track of slightly different gauges together. The train will switch to another stretch of track, and, with only a very slight deviation in gauge, will continue on, smoothly. This can go on through several switches, each taxing the train's ability to stay on track, more and more. Until. Well, at some point the stress will become too great, and the train will run off the track.

When? Your guess is as good as mine. But, I am convinced that-- somewhere along the line--it WILL happen.

-- JackW (, April 03, 2000.


I second the motion that a great deal of ingenuity, which is usually credited for solving the problem and making y2k a non-event, was, instead, generally used, only, to postpone the problem. I feel the problem is still a big one, lurking beneath the surface. All the frantic patches that are still being issued from the likes of Microsoft and Cisco should be sufficient evidence of this.

-- LilyLP (, April 03, 2000.


Contrary to all the laudatory talk of worthy principles emanating from the y2k experience, I'll bet an insidious cancer is growing in the system, right now, from corrupt data.

-- Billiver (, April 03, 2000.

[End of GICC thread on the President's Council Report]

Attachment 2: (GICC thread on IY2KCC final report)

IY2KCC final report posted [url][/url]

Don't know if these links are already posted here but they are news in the Netherlands altough the date on the documents is feb. 16th.

press announcement 80 pages of report

-- snip press announcement ---

Report Details Success, Lessons Learned from Global Y2K Effort International Y2K Cooperation Center Releases Summary Report WASHINGTON, D.C. - The center created under the auspices of the United Nations with World Bank funding to minimize Y2K impact today released its summary report on the Y2K effort.

"Y2K was the first global challenge caused by information technology," said Bruce W. McConnell, director of the International Y2K Cooperation Center (IYCC). "Left un-addressed it would have significantly disrupted everyday life in many parts of the world. The hard work of the global Y2K team - millions of dedicated officials, managers, and technicians - averted that crisis," he said.

The 83-page report, entitled "Y2K: Starting The Century Right!" is posted on the center website, [url][/url] The report "tells the story of the global public-private effort to attack the Y2K problem, as seen through the eyes of the International Y2K Cooperation Center and those of the government officials and their private sector partners in over 170 countries," said McConnell. "It is the story of the network that led the transition into the twenty- first century."

In ten chapters the report details IYCC efforts in promoting national Y2K programs, regional and sector cooperation, public information sharing, continuity and response cooperation, rollover monitoring, a framework for potential Y2K recovery, and lessons learned. An appendix discusses a "Y2K Spending Index" that shows national costs of addressing Y2K were roughly proportional to their dependency on information and communications technology.

On lessons learned, McConnell said, "public information sharing made the job easier for everyone. Y2K teaches that those closest to the situation - in this case the national Y2K coordinators -- are the most likely to know what they are talking about. The success of this non-bureaucratic, virtual network suggests a model for solving future international problems where business, government, and technology come together."

McConnell said the IYCC is scheduled to disband March 1, 2000. "We will conduct an informal watch over the leap dates, but expect that no problems will require international attention," he said.

Y2K refers to computer and automated control system malfunctions that could have occurred when the year changed from 1999 to 2000. Many computers and automated systems were engineered to handle only two- digit year formats, and would have made mistakes or stop working when they encounter "00" in the date field.

The IY2KCC was established in February 1999 under United Nations auspices with World Bank funding in response to the need to coordinate efforts to update computer and automated control systems around the world to transition smoothly to the year 2000. -- snip ---

TakeCare, hzlz

-- hzlz (, February 22, 2000


Thanks hzlz, this has not been previously posted here.

McConnell shows alarming positism. National Y2K Coordinators may know what they are talking about, but as we have learned in many ways, they are the least likely to share information. We all know that many events that happened were simply not reported, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out why.

I once participated in an international roundtable of Government organizations and NGO's (June '99). After that meeting, I felt *really* frightened for our world community (particularly vulnerable populations), in Y2K or any other world wide disaster, for the lack of cooperation and coordination amongst big orgs.

Organizations/nations are simply too agendized/politicized for real cooperation amongst themselves for the quality good of the people they are there to serve. (Y2K made me a REAL pessimist)

-- Jen Bunker (, February 22, 2000.

[End of Attachment 2 concerning the IY2KCC Report]

Attachment 3 (GICC thread on unlearned lessons and related topics) [url][/url]

Email from Michael Brownlee - False Conclusions, Missed Opportunities, & Unlearned Lessons: A Y2K Retrospective

NO URL... From: "Michael Brownlee" To: "Michael Brownlee" Subject: A Y2K Retrospective: False Conclusions, Missed Opportunities, and Unlearned Lessons Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:21:50 -0700 (Snip)


by Michael Brownlee January 31, 2000 [email] [/email]

Only a month has gone by since 01/01/00 - the day the controversial "Millennium Bug" threatened to disrupt modern civilization - and already Y2K seems to have vanished from public consciousness and media attention. Yet there appears to be much confusion, misunderstanding, and misinformation about what actually happened, what didn't happen, what is still occurring, and what might yet occur After devoting the better part of two years of my life to understanding and responding creatively to this issue (with the bias that Y2K was never really about Y2K), I've finally attempted to formulate some very preliminary observations. As briefly as possible, here's my first take.


There has been a rush to judgment about Y2K. While many of these conclusions are patently false, misleading, or at best premature, they are nevertheless being promoted:

* Y2K is over, the problem is solved. There is nothing more to be concerned about, if there ever was. It might even have been a hoax.

* Y2K was never a crisis. The estimated $200 billion to $1 trillion spent on Y2K remediation and contingency planning was largely unnecessary.

* The U.S. is to blame for the Y2K problem.

* With Y2K, we have successfully demonstrated that it is reasonable and even effective to wait until the last possible moment to address critical global issues.

* Government is the only structure that can adequately address global problems.

* The public citizenry is incapable of understanding and making decisions about technology issues. In fact, they should not be involved.

* In crisis situations, it is necessary to manage and control public perception of problems in order to prevent panic.

* We can trust that "the powers that be" (governmental and corporate) will always make decisions that are in the public's best interest; we can confidently place our lives in their hands.

* Y2K was a technology problem.

* Y2K was a management problem.

* John Koskenin [1] solved the Y2K problem.

* John Koskenin is a good candidate for managing the U.S. response to global warming.


For some, including myself, Y2K appeared as the opportunity of our lifetime, a moment when society could initiate a much-needed course- correction in our headlong plunge into the 21st century. While there were many important benefits that emerged from the Y2K crisis, many significant opportunities went largely unrealized:

* Y2K did not provide our society a "teachable moment."

* There was virtually no public dialogue or debate regarding Y2K, and no democratic process.

* No major political leader or celebrity exhibited leadership in the Y2K situation.

* Y2K did not manifest as a carrier wave for social transformation.

* No widespread awakening of consciousness occurred with the dawning of the Year 2000.

* Authentic community is still missing in most of our human experience.

* Beyond the obvious technological meaning, "interconnectedness" has not reached mainstream reality. Separation prevails. Y2K did not bring us together.

* While thousands of heroic and dedicated individuals came forward to be of assistance in the impending crisis, a coherent grassroots movement for awareness and preparedness never materialized.

* While the Internet played a seminal role in making immediately accessible a vast body of developing knowledge about Y2K, and connected a number of people around the world in a dynamic conversation of exploration and discovery, this powerful self- organized network of information and insight was largely ignored by the media, the public, the corporate world, and the government.

* The public still does not understand the implications of the Y2K crisis. Mass media never realistically portrayed the realities of the situation.

* Investigative journalism remains virtually silent on the issues of Y2K.

* Consumerism and exploitive commercialization prevail, without adequate regard for social or ecological resilience, sustainability, or equitability.

* We have no inspiring common vision for the future to guide and inspire us.


Y2K appeared to provide a poignant backdrop for learning lessons that could be vital to the future of the human species. As Y2K now fades from public consciousness, these lessons appear to remain unlearned:

* Lack of understanding of interconnectedness and interdependence can have serious and far-reaching consequences.

* Problems cannot be solved with the level of consciousness that created them.

* We build our computer systems, as Ellen Ullman has said [2], the same way we build our cities: over time, without a plan, on top of ruins. While pervasive, the information infrastructure is still relatively fragile and vulnerable.

* Stirring people to action based on fear of what might happen is disempowering and ineffective.

* Preparing for the worst and hoping for the best is a fear-based strategy.

* It's prudent to remember the Titanic: Have enough lifeboats onboard and know how to use them; inspect the rivets; be wary of repeated declarations of confidence.

* The deep and sweeping changes occurring in our world signal the advent of chaos, a spontaneously occurring transition phase in which a system suddenly reorganizes itself into a new form.

* In our seemingly insatiable drive for certainty and comfort, we diminish our capacity to respond creatively to the radical uncertainty that accompanies chaos.

* In times of chaos, prediction of the future is nearly impossible.


I do not want to appear negative or despondent here. Far from it. I am greatly relieved that Y2K did not have the disastrous consequences that some analysts warned were possible. At the same time, I recognize that the apparent outcome of the Y2K crisis allows many people to believe that "life as we know it" will simply continue, that "business as usual" will prevail.

But we need to understand that "life as we know it" is destined to change swiftly and soon. We will consciously and purposefully change the way we are living on this planet, or we may face far greater crises than we have yet experienced.

It's time for us to consciously choose the future we want to create. As Ervin Lazlo said, "Our generation is called upon to make the choice that will decide our ultimate destiny... We are forced to choose, for the processes we have initiated in our lifetime cannot continue in the lifetime of our children."

However, the problems or crises we face are not our primary challenge, because our problems and crises are inherent in our current state of consciousness. Our challenge in planetary consciousness is to regenerate the patterns of consciousness in the world community and move them to a new level. In short, it is time for us to evolve. This will require great vision and unprecedented leadership in all areas of human endeavor.

Jonas Salk said, "The most meaningful activity in which a human being can be engaged is one that is directly related to human evolution. This is true because humans now play an active and critical role not only in the process of their own evolution but also in the survival and evolution of all living beings. Awareness of this places upon human beings a responsibility for their participating in and contribution to the process of evolution. If humankind would accept and acknowledge this responsibility and become creatively engaged in the process of metabiological evolution consciously, as well as unconsciously, a new reality would emerge and a new age would be born."

Scattered throughout the world, a growing network of world-workers is emerging, people who are laying the foundation for a quantum leap forward in human evolution. Like many people who were activated by the possibilities of Y2K, this is where I now choose to focus my energies, and trust that many more will follow suit.

Very recently, I had the opportunity to read a most extraordinary book, "The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual," by Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger, four of the liveliest and most r/evolutionary voices to emerge on the Internet. They are kindling a conversation that could change our world (you can join it by visiting their website at [url][/url]). These outrageous and courageous authors conclude their manifesto with a vision that is worth sharing:

"We do have a vision of what life could be like if we ever make it through the current transition. It's hard for some to imagine the Era of Total Cluelessness coming to a close. But try. Try hard. Because only imagination can finally bring the curtain down. Imagine a world where everyone was constantly learning, a world where what you wondered was more interesting than what you knew, and curiosity counted for more than certain knowledge. Imagine a world where what you gave away was more valuable than what you held back, where joy was not a dirty word, where play was not forbidden after your eleventh birthday. Imagine a world in which the business of business was to imagine worlds people might actually want to live in someday. Imagine a world created by the people, for the people not perishing from the earth forever."

Yes, imagine that. And from our online Y2K experience, we can well imagine that the Internet will figure prominently in the unfolding of this learning and growing world.

Finally, I want to say that while Y2K may not quite have been the wake-up call for our frenzied world that I had anticipated, it has nevertheless been the context in which many of us have awakened to the reality that we are now called to contribute thoughtfully, heartfully, and actively to humanity's unfolding evolution. For that, I am extremely grateful.

If you care to comment on any of these issues, or engage in a dialogue, please e-mail me: I look forward to hearing from you.



[1] John Koskenin is President Clinton's "Y2K Czar," offically the Chair of the President's Council on Y2K Conversion, and director of the $50 million Information Coordination Center in Washington, D.C. Koskenin has said that his contract with the U.S. and with the world was to "solve the Y2K problem," and he alleges that's exactly what he did. He is a highly skilled bureaucratic manager who relishes difficult situations. His website is [url][/url] Some people have seriously suggested that his next assignment should be global warming.

[2] Ellen Ullman is one of the more articulate and insightful programmers in the world, author of "Close to the Machine: Technophilia and Its Discontents," a memoir of her 20-plus years in the industry. She wrote a compelling article about Y2K for Wired, "The Myth of Order" ([url][/url]). Ullman is also a frequent commentator on National Public Radio.

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudoray2k\attach\winmail9.dat"

-- Sheri Nakken (, February 02, 2000

[End of Attachment 3]

Attachment 4 (GICC Thread on the September 2000 GAO Report) [url][/url]

Comments Concerning the 9/12/2000 GAO Report on Y2K

The following is an EZ Board crossposting of mine concerning the 9/12/2000 GAO Report on Y2K. [url][/url]

The GAO report is available at [url] [/url] .

As a person who is based in Washington, D.C., who has worked with many different government agencies, and who been involved in Y2K efforts since May of 1998, I find the September 12, 2000 GAO Report entitled "Year 2000 Computing Challenge: Lessons Learned Can Be Applied to Other Management Challenges" to be a very partial account with some quite serious flaws.

Major reasons for coming to these conclusions are as follows:

~ The report is based on an extraordinarily narrow definition of Y2K technology problems. The focus of the report is on IT systems and does not include a focus on embedded systems and complex integrated systems. (A larger problem definition is presented in Part 1 of my White Paper on Y2K at [url][/url])

~ The GAO report looks at the internal management of Federal IT systems. One might assume that the report would have included a far more extensive analysis of what the Federal government's roles and responsibilities were and how well these were or were not carried out nationally, as well internationally.

Major accomplishments were left out. For starters, these included

o the role played by the Coast Guard in maritime issues nationally and internationally

o the behind the scenes role played by the Department of Defense in minimizing infrastructure impacts in nations having a US military presence throughout the world; and

o nuclear power plant collaborative remediation initiatives abroad including in Russia and the Ukraine.

Major deficiencies of Federal efforts were also overlooked. I have dealt with these elsewhere at length in questions I posed to John Koskinen in March of 2000. (See the same website noted above for his responses.)

~ The GAO report assumes that ongoing problems in areas of Federal government responsibility have been negligible or non-existent. For whatever reason, some notable problems internal to the Federal government were left out. There have been no visible ongoing efforts to track such problems. It has been politically incorrect to speak of these problems or to publicize them. Indeed, GAO may not even know of them. Lessons cannot be learned when problems are not being openly acknowledged. (See the "Recent Programs" section on the same website noted above for my April 12, 2000 comments concerning difficulties in getting information concerning ongoing problems.)

~ Responsibilities of Federal regulatory agencies of are not dealt with at all in the report. One might conclude that there were no problems to report.

There were and are problems that have occurred this year. These problems have been occurring at higher than normal levels when measured against comparable periods of time in previous years. Presumably the Federal government should be aware of such problems and should be tracking and assessing the problems and taking action as need be. The Information Coordination Center was supposed to have tracked these problems. For whatever reasons, no one, including the ICC, seems to have assessed the possible connection of the problems that have occurred to Y2K and embedded systems malfunctions and failures. These problems are ongoing and if their connections to Y2K and embedded systems are being assessed, the results of such assessments are not being acknowledged. The Chemical Safety Board, the Office of Pipeline Safety, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency are among the agencies that do not appear to be assessing the possibility that the abnormally high number of problems occurring this year within their spheres of responsibility might be related to Y2K and embedded systems malfunctions or failures.

It is natural to assume that surely such matters would be encompassed in this GAO report. For whatever reason, such concerns were not included. If they are fully reported in future studies, the public, the Congress and the Executive Branch will have a far better idea of the many lessons that should have been learned and should be being learned now.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols. com), September 28, 2000

Answers While many have blown off y2k as being a dud because of the lack of visable outages, the apparent tapping of the petroleum reserves indicates a world wide oil supply side y2k shortage that is getting 2 big to cover up. I suspect that we and others have been tapping the commecial reserves since day 1 of this year which are now depleted, they are faced with tapping govt reserves now. I Hope they can fix enough of those advanced hi-tech wellheads and crackers before it get's critical. Were not out of the woods yet, keep up your diligent efforts, the real y2k truth is being covered up in a shroud of secrecy.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike@ conservation . com), September 28, 2000.


...Thanks, Y2K AM, for your comments and kind words.

Regarding secrecy as it pertains to the oil and gas sector: I think secrecy is playing a major role in the private sector where with very few exceptions, those on the front lines in industry are not publicly disclosing what they know. I think that what we are seeing in Federal government officials with responsibilities in the oil and gas sector and in those in the private sector who represent oil and gas sector- related trade associations is simply a lack of knowledge concerning what is actually going on behind the scenes. This can also be coupled with a disinclination to believe that anything is going on that they don't know about. They are not likely to make the connection between oil and gas sector-related problems and any possible Y2K/embedded systems and complex integrated system malfunctions and failures if they have no one on staff with the necessary expertise to make the connection or to raise the question in the first place.

I have dealt with the issues involved in getting to the truth of what is going on in a presentation in April of this year. It is summarized on my website. There is also a link to the video of the presentation at the website. Click on "....Recent Programs" at [url][/url] It might be of interest.

-- Paula Gordon (, September 28, 2000.

[End of GICC thread on the GAO Report]

-- Paula Gordon (, July 18, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ