Some consequences of the 'Jo anne' effect on fiscal policies: ' forward-looking fiscal schedules
will start to show date problems as they try to process 2000. Also,
Howard looks at what these problems could mean for the economy.'
'Thinking About the Unthinkable
By Howard Belasco
December 10, 1998
The quotes below are extracted from a research paper by Dr. Adam
Cobb, Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade group.
Thinking about the Unthinkable: Australian vulnerability to
High-tech risks
(www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1997-98/98rp18.htm#Year)
From the section on Y2K Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not only would Y2K 'attack' all the vulnerabilities identified in the NII
(National Information Infrastructure) simultaneously, the probability of a Y2K
event is guaranteed in spite of what are expected to be extensive
precautions taken in the public and private sector to prevent it. Come 1
January 2000 it is a certainty that some kind of crisis will develop-the only
question concerns the extent of the ensuing dilemma. The unintended or
unimagined consequences of multiple interdependent systems collapse
would cripple the nation more swiftly and comprehensively than any military
attack ever could.
A great part of the danger lies in the timing and magnitude of the problem.
On 01/01/00 every computer system that has not been fixed will experience
some difficulty. Indeed, when it comes to interdependent computers and
networks, it will only take one non-Y2K compliant link to threaten the entire
chain. There is a very high risk that critical infrastructures that rely on
networked computers will face serious, if not catastrophic, failure. Because
it will all happen at the same time right across the country (and indeed
internationally within 24 hours), it is impossible to predict the scope of the
impact. Its scale however, will be unprecedented.
A very dire prediction but let's look at alternatives. The
problem of interdependencies is very real and the
current "hot button" in industries. Now is the time, after
most of the testing and analyzing has been done, to
look at what it will take to survive the millennium rollover.
Most detractors point to the "single point of failure" of
the date 1/1/2000 impacting all non-compliant systems
simultaneously. This is the fallacy in their argument. All
systems, hardware and software, will NOT be impacted on 1/1/2000.
Some Y2K problems have shown up already in purchasing and
inventory programs. Financial packages will be impacted during 1999,
possibly as early as 1/1/1999. For some people, and especially those
in the accounting fields, the impact will be felt early on all those systems
that read a year forward in their standard processing. So if your fiscal
year ends on 4/1, your accounting package will be working with
3/31/2000 as your year-end. Your accounting package will need to be
able to process 2000 beginning 4/1/1999.
This problem has been named the "Jo Anne Effect," after one of the
regular contributors on the comp.2000 newsgroup, Jo Anne Slaven. Jo
Anne first saw the problem and defined it. I will let her explain it in her
own words.
Jo Anne Slaven wrote:
The main premise of the Jo Anne Effect has always been that problems
may occur when a company has a fiscal year containing dates in both 1999
and 2000 - difficulties may be encountered when the accounting software
has to sort dates with years "99" and "00" in the same fiscal year.
Back in April 1998, there was a great deal of discussion going on in this
newsgroup (comp.2000) about the 1999 problem. Many people thought that
"look-ahead" programs would be a problem (they will, but not the biggest
problem) and others thought that the appearance of the magic "1999" would
automatically cause difficulties.
I am not a programmer. I am an accountant. I looked at the issue from the
point of view of an accountant, and I came up with the following: [this is from
Deja News] Being an accountant who has worked with many mainframe and
PC accounting systems, I can tell you that when a new fiscal year starts,
the system has to know what the last day of the fiscal year will be. For a
fiscal year beginning on, say, April 1, 1999, there will be 12 monthly
accounting periods it will have to recognize: April 30, 1999 up to March 31,
2000.
In my mind, I can see the computer thinking that the months are out of
order just as soon as fiscal 1999 is closed and fiscal 2000 is opened up.
Then what happens? Will it show Jan 1 00 as the first day of the fiscal year
by accident? Or will the software simply decide that the whole thing is just
too ridiculous for words, and shut down completely? I don't have any idea
what will happen. I don't have the hardware or software to do any testing. If
anyone out there is able to muck around with this, please do, and let us all
know what happens.
Problems can be anticipated immediately or at any time after the start
of that fiscal year, and may not become apparent until much later. A
word of caution here. I think that the single biggest problem will not be
the computers that crash but those that do NOT crash and SEEM to
function but yet will give erroneous results that you will not know about. If
the software thinks that the date is 1900 and that date is o.k. it will be
out of sync in terms of which day of the week is Monday, Tuesday, etc.,
and how many days there are in the year or in February. Then, it might
be thinking that the difference between 2000 (really 1900) and 2002 is
not 2 years but 102, or negative 102. When calculations are done using
negative numbers, the results can be quite surprising and if you are not
looking for a change of that type, you will just accept the data as you
always have and be on your merry way.
The risks are many and varied. It is impossible to get your hands
around the entire problem, so each of us must continue to do our
personal best to fix what we can and prepare where we must. I could
point to 20 companies that are ready right now, power plants running
with 2000 dates, airplanes that are compliant, but others can point,
equally, to millions of businesses not compliant yet, some power plants
that have not even started yet, airports that can not manage traffic. Who
is right? At this moment, both are. We must continue to analyze the
information that is flowing into the market place and remember to be
careful about how people word their messages.
What will be the real impact of Y2K? I think more than 50% but less than
95% of existing business will be Y2K compliant by 1/1/2000, but no one
really knows what it takes to keep civilization rolling, so 95% might not
be enough or 50% might be enough. How much success will be enough
is anyone's guess. Be careful of what you read and what you read into
what you read. If at all possible, return to the original documentation to
verify that it is being fairly represented. I think that every single company
in the world that can have an impact on society will have SOME part of
their business ready for Y2K. If some of all the systems in the world will
work, how much does that mitigate the impact? If 50% are fully ready,
and 75% of the remaining 50% are ready, and if 95% of the really
mission critical systems are actually covered by 75% of all systems...It
gets out of hand very quickly.
Any business that is ready or almost ready or limping along as it gets
ready is a positive value for their neighbors. A successful or partially
successful contingency is better than a failed contingency.
The river is rising and we are running out of sandbags.
Read Howard Belasco's Bio
y2ktimebomb.com |
