'Very interesting analysis here... - Roleigh
>Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 15:02:36 -0800 (PST)
>To: "Multiple recipients of list cpsr-y2-@cpsr.org "
>< listserv-reply-error-@snyside.sunnyside.com >
>Subject: Electricity Industry - NERC Reports;Hawkins
>X-Comment: CPSR Year 2000 problem discussion list
>X-Info: For listserv info write to listser-@cpsr.org with message HELP
>X-Message-Id: < 2074724526155.ltk.02-@cpsr.org >
>
> Hello CPSR -
>
> I have been on your distribution list for about 10 months and have very
> much appreciated the insights offered by your members. I am an independent
> IS Consultant with 20+ years in the trade, mostly in the management of
> large projects, having run a 300+ staff consulting group at one point in my
> career with contracts up to $25 million.
>
> A recent assigment for a local hospital involved researching the "facts"
> about what has been coming out of NERC, and Washington in general regarding
> the electric industry. Of particular interest to this client is the
> likelhood of disruption to the Northeast power industry. After spending
> about a week crawling inside the NERC website, reprots and spreadsheets, I
> have come to some very disturbing conclusions. The "percent complete"
> methodology followed by NERC follows no standard project accounting
> method I've experienced. It is misleading to the point of absurdity.
> To excerpt from my report for this hospital client:
>
> <snip>
> Percent Complete vs. Percent Done
> The NERC reports rely on an average of the percent complete reported by the
> individual participants and the average estimated completion date. As of
> November 30, 1998 these averages for the three major tasks NERC has chosen
> to report are:
>
> Task Ave. Estimated Completion Date Ave. Percent Complete
> Inventory 8/25/98 96
> Assessment 11/16/98 82
> Remediation/Testing 6/6/99 44
>
> The averages are calculated as the total percent complete or date divided
> by the number of respondents. This number also combines all components of
> the electric industry across all geographic regions such that a generating
> plant in Idaho that is ahead of schedule will offset a distribution company
> in Maine that is behind. As discussed earlier in this report, there are
> fewer alternatives in the transmission and distribution components and that
> progress in one component does not replace slippage in another.
>
> The average dates reported are also misleading. If the goal is remediation
> of all mission critical systems by a certain date, then monitoring the
> average completion date is inconclusive in monitoring progress. Every day
> ahead of schedule on one component should not be used to offset slippage in
>another
> component.
>
> The meaning of these averages is further confused by some specific
> instructions from NERC. The spreadsheet states:
>
> % Complete - Report as amount of work completed in each phase divided by
> total amount of work to do in that phase.If no remediation and testing is
>required
> in an area that was inventoried and assessed, then show remediation and
>testing as
> 100% complete.
>
> This instruction has the effect of overstating the percent complete of a
> participant in the remediation/testing task. Percent complete as used in
> the NERC reports is the percentage of systems that have been tested,not
> the percentage of the Y2K work that has been accomplished. There is a major
> difference between the two. For example, if a company has 20 systems and 10
> of them did not require any remediation, they would report 50 percent
> complete.This is extremely misleading as it implies that the 50 percent
> remaining requires the same effort as the work completed.In actuality, no
> inference about the size, scope or schedule for the remaining work can be
> made. The NERC November report states that 44 percent (on average) of the
> systems have been tested, it is not necessarily true that the remaining 56
> percent will require the same effort or can be completed at the same pace.
> It is likely that the remaining work will require more effort and
> resources than what has been reported to date, as many of the completed
> systems required little or no remediation.
>
> The NERC spreadsheets do not contain any indication of the number of
> systems that will require remediation, or the number of components that
> have been assessed, determined to be non-compliant and must be replaced.
> There is no estimate of the scope of the work left to be done in any of
> the NERC reports. Without this information the likelihood of the
> completion dates being met cannot be directly determined or even estimated.
>
> End snip
>
> I would very much appreciate comments from others in CPSR. Has anyone else
>look at this??? It looks like political spin at its worst. Richardson,
> Sec of Energy was quoted in the NY Times "We can be cautiously optimistic
> about the prospects for the industry meeting its Y2K challenge'' and that
> "tests and repairs are now more than half done".
>
> More than 1/2 done??? The details in the NERC report simply do not
>support this.
>
> Rich Hawkins
> Kingston Consulting, Inc.
> www.kingstonconsulting.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roleigh Martin ourworld.compuserve.com
( easy to remember alias is: webalias.com )
(A Web Site that focuses on Y2k threat to Utilities, Banks & more)
To subscribe to free e-letter, fill in the form at the bottom of the page:
ourworld.compuserve.com
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" message to
roleigh_for_web-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Print out this Y2K brochure to give to your neighbors, friends & relatives:
ourworld.compuserve.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create an e-mail group for your book club. Help & Info |
