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 : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Mansfield who wrote (1579)	5/3/1998 12:54:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 9818

[EMU-Y2K] Peter de Jager on concurrent EMU and Y2K projects 'EMU and the Gamble Expressing any opinion about the proposed European common currency is perceived as voicing a political opinion. That's unfortunate, and it says more about the listener than it does about the speaker. There is another legitimate, non-political and undeniable view of economic union -- economic union involves a tremendous amount of work. In particular, it involves changes to existing computer systems (estimated by some to cost about œ100B), and therein lies the challenge and the gamble. It is only a minor exaggeration to claim that each of us, in good health and at the right time in our lives, and if given the necessary rigorous training and motivation, could have run a 4-minute mile. Personally, I am not aware of any company or organization which can effortlessly handle the work involved with the Year 2000 problem and deliver a solution on time. I do believe that all organizations, if given the necessary rigorous training and motivation, can and hopefully will deliver a timely solution. However, to ask any company to complete the Year 2000 project and at the same time attempt to complete the changes necessary to accommodate a common currency is to expect us to run that 4-minute mile with a bathtub strapped on our backs. The added burden is unreasonable, and considering the consequences of failure, foolhardy. This is not a political statement, but is something much more precious these days -- it's merely common sense. This fact is not unknown to those who have to do the work, either. At a conference several years ago in England, I made the blunt statement that we should not attempt the currency conversion because it would place the Year 2000 project at an unacceptable level of risk. A gentleman stood up at the back of the room and stated strongly and loudly that I did not understand the 'real world,' and that when they told him to do the currency conversion he would have to comply. Now, contrary to his view of my understanding of the real world, I'm all too well aware that when our 'masters' say 'jump!', there is a natural tendency to ask "How high?" I'm also aware that it takes a tremendous amount of courage to stand your ground and question commands which are by their very nature "questionable." My question to him from the lectern was this: "Do you realize that by attempting both, you will deliver neither?" His response was both shocking and informative; with an absolute certainty evident to everyone in the room, he replied quietly, "Without a shadow of a doubt!" Having said his piece, he sat down and was not heard from again. His answer of course leaves no argument. If someone recognizes that a course of action will lead to certain failure, and has decided on that course of action regardless, then there is no point in trying to use the existence of known consequential failure to stay that action. They've already made up their mind to fail -- "Into the Valley of Death, rode the six hundred..." A legitimate question from someone might be, "Do these two projects have to conflict? After all, just because two tasks are large does not mean that they draw upon the same resources." That's true enough. At any point in time there are many large projects on the go. We send rockets to Mars at the same time when we are planning for the Olympics, raising bridges, and building tunnels under the ocean. We're quite good at juggling many huge projects at the same time and still delivering them on time (within reason) and within spitting distance of the original budget. (Yeah, right...) The projects mentioned above vary greatly in their demands on available skills and materials, as well as on their impact to everything else around them. However, EMU and Y2K (Year 2000) are different. While they are indeed separate projects, they draw on mostly the same skill sets and mostly the same materials -- the computer applications upon which 20th century organizations and society are totally dependent. ... 'Companies who have been working on the Y2K problem for three years have stated that they doubt they will complete everything on time. The notion that a company will delay commencement of the Y2K project until the eleventh hour, and then expect to complete on time, despite past experience, literally leaves me stunned. The risks, even if understated so that management will accept them, would be unacceptable to any competent gambler. ... year2000.com