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 (2230)	7/21/1998 4:35:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 9818

KAPPELMAN: 'Millennium Crunch: The Invisible War Rages On In spite of increasing media coverage, the year 2000 war seems to be largely invisible to most people By Leon A. Kappelman olving the year 2000 problem is like fighting a war. Just ask the IS soldiers on the front lines. I've spoken with dozens of year 2000 project leaders (a.k.a. "field commanders") in recent weeks, and most say things like: It's much bigger than we thought ("War is hell"); We can't do it all ("We're fighting on too many fronts"); I'm very concerned about the supply chain ("Communications with our allies are inadequate"). In spite of increasing media coverage and an onslaught of congressional hearings, the year 2000 war seems to be largely invisible to most people. A look at recent self-defeating actions tells the tale: The filings of more than 80% of corporations with the Securities and Exchange Commission claim the year 2000 problem is inconsequential, although 65% are still assessing and planning; 75% of small businesses and 30% of hospitals have yet to begin (InformationWeek, June 8, p. 18; "Race To The Finish"); the House of Representatives refuses to pass an emergency spending bill for fixing the year 2000 problem in federal agencies and instead trims the Department of Defense's year 2000 appropriations; and The New York Times again claims year 2000 is only about old mainframe programs from the 1960s and 1970s (do those people ever leave the house?). This is reminiscent of the war in Southeast Asia. We sent our troops into battle, but we didn't give them our total support. We know what happens to IT projects without management and user support. But this time, the war is taking place in our own backyard--and the stakes are higher, too. In addition to our business and manufacturing systems, all of our basic infrastructures are at risk of disruption. That includes all the things we assume will be there--like ATMs, electricity, water, dial tone, medical services, transportation services, and national defense. And if you think your supply chain is stronger than its weakest link, look at how quickly a strike at one plant precipitated the closing of all General Motors plants, or recall how much disruption last year's United Parcel Service strike caused you. Everyone at every level of government, industry, and society should make every effort to ensure that our critical infrastructures (energy, communications, transportation, health care, banking) don't fail us at the turn of the century. "Business as usual" will likely lead us to the worst possible outcomes. We need extensive cooperation and honest sharing of information. We critically need active leadership. As in wartime, it's "United we stand, divided we fall." I have been working on the date-field problem longer than most, so let me be the one to say, "The users all missed this" (save perhaps the handful of us who called for action before 1990 or so--and even that late date is quite suspect in most situations). So blaming one another for arriving late is totally senseless. The sensible thing to do is work to minimize the damage and expedite the recovery. All else is folly. Newt Gingrich blaming Al Gore and Al Gore telling techies to get busy are examples of abject cowardice in the face of the enemy. Even worse, it demoralizes the troops. Where we'll be 18 months from now is up to us. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? To honor those who are part of the solution, the Society for Information Management Year 2000 Working Group and the Software Productivity Group Year 2000 Conference Advisory Board have created the "SPG/SIM Year 2000 Hall of Fame." Learning about these behind-the-scenes heroes will help us focus on the solution and learn from those in the vanguard of victory. Details and nomination forms are available at year2000.unt.edu. Professor Leon A. Kappelman is associate director of the Center for Quality and Productivity at the University of North Texas, co-chairman of the Society for Information Management's Year 2000 Working Group, and program chairman of the SPG Year 2000 Conference series. He can be reached at kapp@unt.edu.