'This group has an almost total lack of discussion of embedded systems issues. Yet, embedded systems (ES) are where the real problems lay for most businesses. '
'This was posted on Peter de Jager's Forum.
I have read postings on de Jager's forum for almost two years. I concur with his assessment. There are a few exceptions (David Hall's comments on embedded chips come to mind), but on the whole, the questions do not apply to actual production of products. Manufacturing is noticeably absent from the forum.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998
I have spent most of this morning catching up on my reading of the postings to this discussion group. The trends I see concern me. If the postings here accurately represent the Y2K work that is being performed, I fear that most companies are approaching this problem backwards -- that is, fixing their lowest priority systems first and basically ignoring their mission critical systems.
From what I read here, I would have to conclude that the primary products of most companies are: documents, spread sheets, emails, accounting reports, and customer billings. I seriously doubt that these are most companies' real products. I fear that most companies are neglecting their true mission critical systems.
Stop and think for a minute: "What is the primary product or service our company produces?" Is it manufacturing a certain widget, a utility service such as electric power, is it an infrastructure service such as medical/hospital care or public safety, a customer service such as banking or insurance, or is it a governmental service such as social security?
Reading the posting to this group, I would have to draw the conclusion that almost none of the posters to this group are involved in any business that produces a product. Why? Because of the lack of discussions about those systems involved in producing any product and many services. This group has an almost total lack of discussion of embedded systems issues. Yet, embedded systems (ES) are where the real problems lay for most businesses. For even IT-intensive organization such as banks, our experience is that ES issues will consume over 25% of their Y2K budgets. For manufacturers, ES costs can run from about 55-60%+ of a discrete parts manufacturer's Y2K budget, 65-75%+ of a process manufacturer's Y2K budget, to over 85% of a utility's Y2K budget. I doubt that the ES cost of few organizations fall below 15% of their Y2K budget (that is, if they are doing an adequate Y2K assessment), yet probably less than 5% of the articles to this group deal with ES issues. Where are the discussions on PLCs, SCADA, CNC, ASRS, etc.?
What does this group spend most of its time discussing? PCs. WHO CARES ABOUT PCs? Or let me rephrase that: For most organizations, if they had proper Y2K priorities, then PCs should be about the last item they should worry about. The only conclusion I can reach is that most organizations must being taking a backwards approach to Y2K.
One of the first things an organization should do during the assessment phase of their Y2K program is determine the criticality of each system. All systems (IT, ES, and manual/paper) should be assessed (in decreasing order of remediation priority) as either: Safety Critical (failure will result in injury or death, or property or environmental damage), Mission Critical (those systems required for the production and delivery of product or service -- which includes payroll), Support (those systems that support business operations but are not mission critical), or Ancillary (those systems whose primary benefit is productivity).
I cannot recall ever having seen a discussion of safety critical systems in this group, but they should be EVERY organization's highest priority. I can only conclude that either no one is working on their safety critical systems, or that all safety critical systems are compliant. Somehow, I doubt the latter case is true. At least there has been a very few postings about mission critical system components, so I have to conclude that at least some work is being done there, but apparently not enough, else it would be the greatest topic of discussion.
This group's emphasis on PCs clearly requires the question: "How do PCs benefit most organizations?" Clearly, the answer is almost universally: "PCs increase productivity." Why so much emphasis on those systems that serve to increase productivity but do not contribute to the production of product or service (in most organizations)? I can only conclude that most organizations have their priority backwards.
There are several topics that are almost never discussed in this group, but are highly relevant to Y2K projects. These include: configuration management, testing effectiveness, metrics collection and analysis, and related project management/project quality issues. Are these simply practices that most organizations are ignoring? I hope not.
I am glad to see that there is at least some discussion of risk management, contingency planning, and infrastructure dependencies. However, the level of discussion on these topics has to leads me to conclude that most organizations are struggling to figure out how to adequately address these issues.
Again, from the posting on this discussion group, I find it difficult to conclude that most Y2K projects have the priorities required for the organization to survive. If this is not the case, then why so much discussion about issues that in the long run really do not matter, and such little discussion of the issues critical to an organization's survival?
I hopes my comments serve to stimulate more discussion of critical organization survival issues. Clearly, this discussion is needed.
Sincerely,
Jon R. Kibler
Systems Architect
Year 2000 Services Manager
Jon.Kibler@aset.com
garynorth.com
|
