Issme,
I have a coworker who has a similar view of Y2K. He is responsible for the rating software at my client's site.
When I arrived there last spring, he told me that they had already remediated and tested their software, and that it was currently running in production. I was pleasantly surprised to hear this. They used the window technique rather than the expansion technique.
Although expansion is the ideal method, most companies did not start working on the problem early enough to use expansion, so “windowing” has been widely adopted. Expansion is simply too involved to be implemented in the time remaining. When expanding a date field, we have encounter problems with report and screen displays, sort sequences, dates embedded in file keys, DASD space, internal and external interfaces, historic and backup files, and many others.
Later last spring, I was speaking to the manager responsible for system testing. She told me that her team was in the process of setting up a test bed to time machine test the remediated software. The software that was running in production had not been time machine tested, but the individual managers, programmers and analysts were confident that it was Y2K ready.
The time machine testing started last summer and they are still having problems getting a complete system test to run. The remediated code contains a couple of subtle but fatal errors, causing the test system to crash repetitively. We are also finding that there are a lot of invalid dates in our files, which are causing unexpected errors. If we were not time machine testing our remediated software, we would not have been able to create invoices for an extended period of time after 12/31/1999.
I realize that “work arounds” can be found and apply in a relative short period of time, usually in a couple of hours or a couple of days. But, the actual fix usually takes much longer; sometimes it can take months to apply a proper fix. These work arounds also often create more problems that don't show up until later.
While I don't believe that these types of problems will cause TEOTWAWKI, I do believe that there will be enough of these problems to cause an economic slowdown. If it occurs simultaneously with other negative economic factors, it could help trigger a mild recession.
But the real problem with Y2K is the embedded systems. We don't even know where all of them are located. Without a complete inventory, we can't identify what is vulnerable, let alone fix all of them. It will only take a few key embedded systems to fail to result in TEOTWAWKI. Most of the important embedded systems have been identified (power utilities, telecommunications, etc), but what have we missed?
If these devices fail, they will not be fixed in a short period of time. If the chip is defective, you often can't simply replace it with a “spare”, because the replacement part will likely contain the same defect. You might have to redesign the device.
A failure of an embedded system can also cause more serious damage than failure of a company's software. Machinery being controlled by the embedded system could be damaged. Harmful materials could be released into the environment.
The oil industry is known to utilize a multitude of embedded devices. Chemical manufacturers also rely heavily on embedded systems to control the manufacturing process. These devices are everywhere and they control a lot of the tasks that we have come to rely on. Other processes could be affected. If any of our primary industries experiences Y2K problems, there will be a ripple affect that will be felt by suppliers and customers.
Depending on which companies and industries experience Y2K embedded system problems, I believe that these problems could result in an economic slowdown to a moderate or severe recession.
The other wildcard in Y2K is public reaction. If people panic because of either actual or perceived Y2K problems, the effect could be devastating. If we behave rationally, and plan for any disruptions, we should be able to ride out the effect without any long-term serious disruptions.
When you factor in other variables, such as the sky high stock market, high consumer debt, foreign market meltdowns, military conflicts and the fractional banking system, you realize that once a few things go seriously wrong, the potential for major problems is staring us in the face. Will Y2K be the spark that sets off a series of negative events? I don't pretend to know the answer to that question, but I do recognize that we are in a very vulnerable position and I believe that preparation is the better way soften any potential blow. |
