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 (304)	4/3/1998 12:56:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston	Respond to of 618

Embedded Chips: Why the secrecy? More comments from one of my collegues. Please read on. Jocelyn's questions and observations are Right On Target It has been my experience, that a few vendors/manufacturers are actually doing a great job. Others are simply doing the best they can with a problem which, in some cases, is already bigger than they are. Some are not going to make it. Unfortunately, a great majority of vendors/manufacturers are only beginning to seriously address these issues at all BECAUSE some of us are actually forcing them to tell the entire story. All too few of us though, so it remains a major struggle each time we try to press them to prove that one of their claims is factual. From another perspective, I was astonished when, at a recent conference concerning Computer Centers & Building Infrastructure Systems (sub-topics on Y2K, etc.), I found out that more than 95% of the representatives of the companies I polled said they were accepting (without further qualification)the Vendor claims of Y2K compliance as stated in the vendor's initial written response to their inquiry. Why?, because the letter was considered legally binding. WOW, a narrow focus on strictly the legal rather than operational impact of Y2K is actually avoiding the issue. In another session of the conference focusing more on Y2K best practices, I happened to share with the same group some of what I have learned during the past eleven months about Vendor Y2K Tactics, Believability, and the necessity for the Owner's Due Diligence. Two others in the group who had also subscribed to the same "Prove it" approach with vendors as I had, went on to recount their own similar Y2K experiences with vendors/manufacturers. Needless to say, after the conference was concluded, the rest of the group went home with a revised Y2K agenda and some anticipation of pain in their eyes. I'm sure at least some of them will uncover something that will save their company from a previously undetected Y2K hit. Getting back to Jocelyn's question, "Why the secrecy?" Besides the vendors not wanting to share the bad news until: 1) they complete their own internal assessments 2) have their lawyers get their liability and PR position fully defined 3) plan product and customer damage control Those who are responsible for the Y2K process on the client / user end are usually too busy grappling with the business issues and entangled with vendor relations to spend much time communicating with those searching the Web for answers. This is my first response to such a communication and I paused this time to offer even this short reply only because it struck a sensitive cord. The issue is immense, the complications are many, the resources are scarce, and discovering the solutions takes lots of time and effort. By the way, regular business activities must also continue. P.S. Example of factory embedded chips too close to home: I've heard first-hand of a couple of production related devices with embedded chips that are not Y2K compliant but that cannot be tested because they will be damaged beyond recovery by the very process of testing. They cannot be fixed or upgraded. Replacement cost of each of these devices is in the high six figure price range. The due diligence of the production folks uncovered this situation Not the good will of the vendor or verbiage of a seemingly legally binding letter. What the actual solution was or will be in this case I'm not familiar, but it is expensive. Even so, better to know now than to find out abruptly in the midst of a production run some night during the remaining 640+. What is the vendor liability here??? As relates to a company's business case, I and others of like mind maintain that it will not matter much about whose liable if at the end of 1999 (earlier or latter) one discovers with astonishment that the company cannot produce their product or that its' employees cannot access or work within their facilities. Whether you are responsible for Building Systems or Production Systems, liability will not even matter during the 01, 02, 03, ... years that follow while the litigation drags on and on. Or the vendor/manufacturer goes into chapter 11. For those who think securing letters of compliance is enough, my colleagues and I are confident that you can depend upon all of the lawyers who authored your letters of compliance to be out on the Production Floor or standing next to a Building Maintenance person, keyboard or wrench in hand, ready to actively help you get your product out to the customer, aren't you??? ______________________________________________________________________ Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 19:58:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Y2K Maillist (Via: Amy)" <amy@year2000.com> Subject: Re: Embedded Chips: Why the secrecy? From: dangej@nytimes.com To: year2000-discuss@year2000.com Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:41:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Embedded Chips: Why the secrecy?