SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (484)7/3/1998 2:39:00 PM
From: John Mansfield  Respond to of 618
 
'This group has an almost total lack of discussion of embedded systems issues. Yet, embedded systems (ES) are where the real problems lay for most businesses. '

'This was posted on Peter de Jager's Forum.

I have read postings on de Jager's forum for almost two years. I concur with his assessment. There are a few exceptions (David Hall's comments on embedded chips come to mind), but on the whole, the questions do not apply to actual production of products. Manufacturing is noticeably absent from the forum.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998

I have spent most of this morning catching up on my reading of the postings to this discussion group. The trends I see concern me. If the postings here accurately represent the Y2K work that is being performed, I fear that most companies are approaching this problem backwards -- that is, fixing their lowest priority systems first and basically ignoring their mission critical systems.

From what I read here, I would have to conclude that the primary products of most companies are: documents, spread sheets, emails, accounting reports, and customer billings. I seriously doubt that these are most companies' real products. I fear that most companies are neglecting their true mission critical systems.

Stop and think for a minute: "What is the primary product or service our company produces?" Is it manufacturing a certain widget, a utility service such as electric power, is it an infrastructure service such as medical/hospital care or public safety, a customer service such as banking or insurance, or is it a governmental service such as social security?

Reading the posting to this group, I would have to draw the conclusion that almost none of the posters to this group are involved in any business that produces a product. Why? Because of the lack of discussions about those systems involved in producing any product and many services. This group has an almost total lack of discussion of embedded systems issues. Yet, embedded systems (ES) are where the real problems lay for most businesses. For even IT-intensive organization such as banks, our experience is that ES issues will consume over 25% of their Y2K budgets. For manufacturers, ES costs can run from about 55-60%+ of a discrete parts manufacturer's Y2K budget, 65-75%+ of a process manufacturer's Y2K budget, to over 85% of a utility's Y2K budget. I doubt that the ES cost of few organizations fall below 15% of their Y2K budget (that is, if they are doing an adequate Y2K assessment), yet probably less than 5% of the articles to this group deal with ES issues. Where are the discussions on PLCs, SCADA, CNC, ASRS, etc.?

What does this group spend most of its time discussing? PCs. WHO CARES ABOUT PCs? Or let me rephrase that: For most organizations, if they had proper Y2K priorities, then PCs should be about the last item they should worry about. The only conclusion I can reach is that most organizations must being taking a backwards approach to Y2K.

One of the first things an organization should do during the assessment phase of their Y2K program is determine the criticality of each system. All systems (IT, ES, and manual/paper) should be assessed (in decreasing order of remediation priority) as either: Safety Critical (failure will result in injury or death, or property or environmental damage), Mission Critical (those systems required for the production and delivery of product or service -- which includes payroll), Support (those systems that support business operations but are not mission critical), or Ancillary (those systems whose primary benefit is productivity).

I cannot recall ever having seen a discussion of safety critical systems in this group, but they should be EVERY organization's highest priority. I can only conclude that either no one is working on their safety critical systems, or that all safety critical systems are compliant. Somehow, I doubt the latter case is true. At least there has been a very few postings about mission critical system components, so I have to conclude that at least some work is being done there, but apparently not enough, else it would be the greatest topic of discussion.

This group's emphasis on PCs clearly requires the question: "How do PCs benefit most organizations?" Clearly, the answer is almost universally: "PCs increase productivity." Why so much emphasis on those systems that serve to increase productivity but do not contribute to the production of product or service (in most organizations)? I can only conclude that most organizations have their priority backwards.

There are several topics that are almost never discussed in this group, but are highly relevant to Y2K projects. These include: configuration management, testing effectiveness, metrics collection and analysis, and related project management/project quality issues. Are these simply practices that most organizations are ignoring? I hope not.

I am glad to see that there is at least some discussion of risk management, contingency planning, and infrastructure dependencies. However, the level of discussion on these topics has to leads me to conclude that most organizations are struggling to figure out how to adequately address these issues.

Again, from the posting on this discussion group, I find it difficult to conclude that most Y2K projects have the priorities required for the organization to survive. If this is not the case, then why so much discussion about issues that in the long run really do not matter, and such little discussion of the issues critical to an organization's survival?

I hopes my comments serve to stimulate more discussion of critical organization survival issues. Clearly, this discussion is needed.

Sincerely,

Jon R. Kibler

Systems Architect

Year 2000 Services Manager

Jon.Kibler@aset.com

garynorth.com



To: John Mansfield who wrote (484)7/5/1998 10:09:00 AM
From: John Mansfield  Respond to of 618
 
' T WAS THE BIGGEST, BEST-ATTENDED year 2000 conference yet, but it still wasn't enough. "If everyone who should be working on the problem were here, we'd be in Yankee Stadium," said Leon Kappelman, co-chair of the Society for Information Management's (SIM) Y2K Working Group and the Y2K conference's chairman.
More than 1,500 people gathered in New York City in March for SPG's Year 2000 Conference and Expo
...

'At the same time, new facets of Y2K continue to emerge, like problems with embedded chips and PCs, IT's lack of experience with contingency planning and widespread concern about how governments and the utilities industry are handling their own Y2K issues.
...

'Embedded Systems Dangers
Two sessions directly addressed the issue of Y2K bugs etched into embedded systems, but questions about the risks they pose were sprinkled throughout the conference. In a three-hour workshop on the topic, David Hall, a senior consultant at Cara Corp. in Chicago, said that identifying all the embedded systems throughout an enterprise is difficult, and testing them for compliance is nearly impossible.
"There's been approximately $10 billion in microprocessors manufactured and sold since 1991," Hall said. "And only 10 percent of those have gone into PCs. Finding and fixing the other 90 percent is going to be a pretty big challenge."
Hall recommended that Y2K managers get test data from vendors and then rigorously verify it. Jay Abshier, Y2K manager at Texaco Inc. in Bellaire, Texas, supported that approach. He said that his company had received assurances from an embedded chip's manufacturer that it was compliant, but after Abshier's team performed an assessment of their systems, they found some systems didn't recognize Feb. 29, 2000, as a valid date. "Doing that kind of testing isn't cheap," Abshier said. "And it's something that has to be in your budget for 1999."
...

' T WAS THE BIGGEST, BEST-ATTENDED year 2000 conference yet, but it still wasn't enough. "If everyone who should be working on the problem were here, we'd be in Yankee Stadium," said Leon Kappelman, co-chair of the Society for Information Management's (SIM) Y2K Working Group and the Y2K conference's chairman.
More than 1,500 people gathered in New York City in March for SPG's Year 2000 Conference and Expo. The presenters included Kappelman, economist Ed Yardeni and tireless gong-banger Peter de Jager. Each one underscored Kappelman's comment: After more than a year of awareness-raising, too few companies and government agencies are paying enough attention to their Y2K problems.
At the same time, new facets of Y2K continue to emerge, like problems with embedded chips and PCs, IT's lack of experience with contingency planning and widespread concern about how governments and the utilities industry are handling their own Y2K issues.
For these reasons, there was a surreal mood to the conference. Attendees felt that the scope of their projects is expanding as the time frame to complete them is shrinking, and yet it seems that the rest of the world regards Y2K as either a low priority or a simple fix that's not of concern to nontechnical types. Yardeni, the Deutsche Morgan Grenfell economist who has speculated about the possibility of a global recession sparked by Y2K, captured the atmosphere best in his keynote: "I don't know about you, but [Y2K] has been an X Files experience for me. I can't tell if I'm being paranoid, or if the rest of the world is just oblivious. Should I be taking heavy doses of Prozac? Check into the Betty Ford Clinic for Delusional Economists?"
Yardeni's line got a laugh--but it was a very sympathetic one. This audience knew how he felt. It was not an optimistic group.

Embedded Systems Dangers
Two sessions directly addressed the issue of Y2K bugs etched into embedded systems, but questions about the risks they pose were sprinkled throughout the conference. In a three-hour workshop on the topic, David Hall, a senior consultant at Cara Corp. in Chicago, said that identifying all the embedded systems throughout an enterprise is difficult, and testing them for compliance is nearly impossible.
"There's been approximately $10 billion in microprocessors manufactured and sold since 1991," Hall said. "And only 10 percent of those have gone into PCs. Finding and fixing the other 90 percent is going to be a pretty big challenge."
Hall recommended that Y2K managers get test data from vendors and then rigorously verify it. Jay Abshier, Y2K manager at Texaco Inc. in Bellaire, Texas, supported that approach. He said that his company had received assurances from an embedded chip's manufacturer that it was compliant, but after Abshier's team performed an assessment of their systems, they found some systems didn't recognize Feb. 29, 2000, as a valid date. "Doing that kind of testing isn't cheap," Abshier said. "And it's something that has to be in your budget for 1999."
Separately, de Jager, in a keynote address, said that he is considering relinquishing responsibility for his Project Damocles effort. (He has since terminated the project altogether.) De Jager started the project late last year to attempt to bring more attention--and accountability--to the embedded systems issue. But now he's worried that by serving as a conduit for complaints about noncompliant embedded systems he'll be subpoenaed countless times in post-Y2K litigation. "Like everyone else here, I want to avoid the courtroom," he said.

PC Risks
Why haven't PCs been considered part of the Y2K equation? Speaker Karl W. Feilder, CEO and president of Greenwich Mean Time Inc. in Chichester, England, a provider of Y2K PC tools that researches the impact of Y2K on desktop systems, has a few theories. First, he says that few companies are selling tools to assess and fix Y2K problems on PCs relative to the number of vendors focusing on mainframes. Second, there's a psychological issue. "Most senior decision makers grew up with mainframes," Feilder says. "They think people don't do anything useful on a PC. And that's fundamentally wrong." Third, most IT organizations exercise less control over PCs than over other systems. "I spoke with a Baby Bell the other day that thought it had 50,000 PCs," Feilder says, nursing a cafE latte in the lobby bar of the New York Hilton. "They actually had 75,000."
Feilder pointed out that the Y2K problem on PCs doesn't end with the BIOS chip. "That's only 1 percent of the problem," he says. Feilder describes the PC problem as having five layers: hardware, operating systems, software programs, data and data sharing. He recommends addressing each of those layers the same way one would handle the Y2K project for a mainframe system: assessment, triage, conversion and testing.
And companies that allow employees to telecommute have to be concerned not only with PCs in the workplace but with PCs at home. Can organizations afford not to prepare those PCs for the new millennium? "You have to do it," says Feilder. "Otherwise, you wouldn't want to let them connect to your network. It could be seen as legally negligent."

Uncertainty About Utilities
One of the dominant worries at the conference was how the nation's power and telecommunications infrastructure will weather the transition from 1999 to 2000. While most companies take electricity and telecom service for granted, several presenters brought up troubling examples of how even isolated failures can wreak havoc on the business world. Among the anecdotes were discussions of last winter's ice storm in Canada and northern New England, as well as the lengthy power outage in Auckland, New Zealand.
"In my opinion, there is a 100 percent certainty that we will see blackouts as a result of Y2K if current trends continue," said Hall. "How long and how large will they be? I don't know." Hall, a member of the SIM Working Group, also pointed out that power plants of all types are highly dependent on security and safety infrastructures that could fail. "If the local 911 system doesn't work, a nuclear plant can't operate," he observed, noting that regulations require that staff be able to summon firetrucks and ambulances in an emergency.
...

cio.com