Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Year 2000 (Y2K) Embedded Systems & Infrastructure Problem -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Mansfield who wrote (99)	2/18/1998 5:10:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 618

Some thoughts on previous post on DCY2K 2/17 meeting << VERY INTERESTING: DCY2K 2/17 meeting on embeddeds - Cory Hamasaki x4.dejanews.com >> Cory was very scepical about 'embeddeds' (yes I like that term; faster typed in than 'embedded software') issues only 5 - 7 months ago. Then there was some discussion on this issue; usual cynical remarks. It seems he takes this very serious now. Some significant remarks are IMO: '1. Diane Shields - CACI - Submarine Fire Control Systems. Subsystem vendors go out of business.' So there is an extreme pressure on these businesses to get compliant ASAP; or to demonstrate that they are working on it. Exactly what Cheryl wrote in her research reports. '4. Hernando Quintero - BRI - Power generation Based on technical assessment of hundreds of systems in 20 generating facilities including Gas, Oil, and Coal but not Nuclear, 400 person days per site; expert engineers.' So huge amount of manpower needed. This estimate could be used for some very rough extrapolations for e.g. all utilities. 'Last year we had a c.s.y2k squabble about planes, air traffic control, and the FAA. Turns out that KLM is canceling flights, the FAA is hosed, and <reported tonight at DC Y2K> there are 170 date sensitive systems in a jetliner.' Well this has been rumored before (i.e. 170 date sensitive systems) ; this statement makes it more reliable to me. Regards, John

To: John Mansfield who wrote (99)	2/19/1998 11:58:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 618

'The undertaking by the automotive industry via AIAG is massive. With nearly 50 000 Tier-1 suppliers and 500 000 total suppliers throughout the chain...' '....AIAG Assessment Certified and asked if he would care to comment.' 'Currently the response rate is very low...' '...but the automotives delve into production areas as a focus. Most of these require specialized and/or unique systems. Only through a comprehensive SAQ do I as an assessor even know where to begin to look.' Interesting discussion on the Car industry y2k program. John --------- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:33:44 -0500 To: year2000-discuss@year2000.com From: "John M. Grover" <jgrover@millenniumplus.com> Subject: re: AIAG: Self assessment questionnaire At 02:28 PM 2/6/1998 -0500, Jay Abshier, Mgr- Corporate Year 2000 Office Texaco Inc wrote: >I agree totally with Chris Warwick's comments on the AIAG questionnaire. It >appears to me to be self-defeating and it amazes me that the AIAG let these >consultants get away with this. I would love to discuss this with someone >at AIAG or one of the automakers, but they do not reveal any names or phone >numbers, at least in the one copy I saw. Mine, however, is below. > >In asking for information from suppliers, each company must decide what they >are trying to accomplish and ask for no more information than is required to >reach that objective. In my case, I want to assure my company that it's >suppliers are aware of the full scope of potential Year 2000 problems, that >they have a team in place to address these problems and have a deadline for >fixing them. In the case of systems that our systems INTERFACE with, we >need to know enough to ensure that these systems will continue to talk with >one another. Anything beyond that wastes my time, their time and is >invasive. > >SNIP< > I took the liberty of forwarding the above to an associate of mine who is AIAG Assessment Certified and asked if he would care to comment. He did so directly to Mr. Abshier and copied me. He has given me permission to share his response with the rest of the MailList and it follows: Return-Path: <bruinz@email.msn.com> From: "Bill Newman" <bruinz@email.msn.com> To: <abshijb@texaco.com> Cc: "John Grover" <jgrover@millenniumplus.com>, "Jack Tyson" <jtyson@uta.com> Subject: Thoughts and Opinions ... AIAG Self-Assessment ... Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:45:33 -0500 Hi Jay: I am responding on behalf of AIAG and the Year 2000 effort ongoing. I am aTier-2 supplier in the automotive industry (one hat) as well as a certified Y2k assessor (other hat) and have spoken on behalf of AIAG and its supplier readiness program. Let me preface also by saying that if you would like to include Jack Tyson in this discussion (from UT Automotive), he is cc:d above. I receive relevant list postings from my colleague John Grover. He too is cc:d above and belongs to your list. The undertaking by the automotive industry via AIAG is massive. With nearly 50 000 Tier-1 suppliers and 500 000 total suppliers throughout the chain, you can quickly sense the urgency and scope of the matter. The Self-assessment Questionnaires (SAQ) are very detailed, I will agree. Currently the response rate is very low, and one option under consideration is the release and follow-up of a "kinder and gentler" SAQ. However, to produce a complete system like an automobile in a complex environment as assembly operations, requires a myriad of systems. Each system status must be known to assess overall risk to the supply chain. Ergo the large and detailed SAQ. In your post you began: >I agree totally with Chris Warwick's comments on the AIAG questionnaire. It >appears to me to be self-defeating and it amazes me that the AIAG let these consultants get away with this. I would love to discuss this with someone at AIAG or one of the automakers, but they do not reveal any names or phone umbers, at least in the one copy I saw. Mine, however, is below. Lawyers will propel some behaviors, true, but the comprehensiveness of the matter is the driver. As a certified assessor, my job when called upon is to do a risk assessment (like a balance sheet) at the time and facility of the supplier questioned. Obviously we look for the technology risk (old systems, EDI, old mainframes running COBOL, etc.), but the automotives delve into production areas as a focus. Most of these require specialized and/or unique systems. Only through a comprehensive SAQ do I as an assessor even know where to begin to look. In any system effort there are situations which demand because of time constraints a less-than-optimal solution. And I agreed that the SAQ is not bullet-proof. But IMHO it is better than any other industry initiative out there (including the SEC and ITAA since very little deals with on-site validation) and is certainly proactive given the objectives of supply chain readiness. Feel free to post this response on the list and to forward to me information regarding its subscription. Best regards, wdn. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ William D. Newman CMC @ Waterford, Michigan USA * A-OK Applied Technologies Group * 248.340.7070 * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Certified Management Consultant with specialties in: Information Technology Management Technology and Organization Integration Simulation and Production Software Development Year 2000 Advisory ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Visit the IMC website at imcusa.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To: John Mansfield who wrote (99)	2/19/1998 1:23:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 618

Cory: 'cory hamasaki lumped into the denial-head category at DC Y2K.' Some more on the DCY2K meeting of 17/2; Cory on C.S.Y2K: 'no clueless questions, I didn't hear any denial-head yip-yap' 'you can run unit tests but the real nasty date problems will surface during full-up system test...' 'she confirmed that her team found a catastrophic date driven problem in a missile launch control system. ' ------- >Cory, has there been any discussion of triage? Who will set the criteria? >Will it be public? Most companies still show people (few with any tested >code and without Clue about potential embedded & partnering issues, much >less operating under extremes of economic duress) still claiming they're >going to be just peachy. Is that still happening at these meetings (not the >cluelessness but the 100% or nothing attitude)? Hah! No to the implied question. DC Y2K is ahead of c.s.y2k if anything. While the attendance is running 50% clueless management, there is a large contingent of "run, run, while you can". I heard one person say, "Paul Milne is a denial-head, what makes him think he can triage his life style, I'm moving to a remote island." This shocked me as I've been thinking of Paul as out-there, like, way out there. To one DC Y2K attendee, he's not middle of the road, he's a denial-head, not facing up to the risks. So where does that leave me? Call me amoeba-brain. Someone else pointed across the room, "he wrote a book on surviving Y2K, I think he's a Mormon so he has a lot of good information." Three of the speakers said "If you didn't start last year, you're not going to finish." They incorporated guidelines on triage into their presentations, discussed supplier issues, vendors went out of business, work arounds, etc. The GTE guy's point was, you can run unit tests but the real nasty date problems will surface during full-up system test... then he explained how hard it is to test the national telecommunications infrastructure. Also, our Rick did not shock them, Diane Shields, the CACI lady <who looks like a nice granny and dresses very well> got the biggest rise when she confirmed that her team found a catastrophic date driven problem in a missile launch control system. It doesn't launch the nukes, it prevents the nukes from being launched... ...as Dr. Strangelove says, "what's the point of deterence if you don't instill the FEAR." I'll expand on this in the next DC WRP. The good news is, DC Y2K is a serious bunch of pro's. There were no clueless questions, I didn't hear any denial-head yip-yap, no one said, "What's software anyway, I don't think there's a problem, prove it to me." Some of the attendees looked fearful, surly, mean. The downside is, there are still a lot of marketeers, but then, like the poor, they will always be with us. cory hamasaki lumped into the denial-head category at DC Y2K.