Y2K — A Minor Hiccup
or Major Indigestion?

By Coy Hoggard, Senior Director of Administrative Computing and UNT Y2K Remediation Coordinator

This is Mr. Hoggard's second major article on the Year 2000 Computer Problem for Benchmarks Online. Click here to read the first. -- Ed.

So — What do YOU believe about Y2K?

Having discussed the "Y2K Problem" (or the "Year 2000 Computer Problem") with numerous people and having read numerous comments contained in various media sources, it seems to me that a very large percentage of the general population (excluding those of us who are or have been actively involved in working on the problem) fall pretty much into three categories regarding their opinions on this matter:

First are the few, but often very vocal people who profess to believe that Y2K problems will be widespread and extremely serious, perhaps even resulting in a collapse of our government and possibly the end of civilization as we know it. The people in this group advocate stockpiling food, water and other supplies in quantities adequate to sustain them for months or years. Some advocate relocating to remote rural areas and adopting a totally self-sufficient lifestyle. Some either already have or will arm themselves, preparing to defend their stockpiles from outsiders who have not made similar preparations. Included in this group are a number of individuals who hope to sell large quantities of the supplies that they recommend be stockpiled, often at prices significantly higher than the same or similar products can be purchased elsewhere. So, the sincerity of those who stand to benefit financially from widespread Y2K fears might be questionable. Some of these supplies vendors, however, are quite sincere in their beliefs and are just trying to be of service to other like-minded individuals. Some of the people who fit into this group are those who believe that January 1, 2000 will mark the beginning of a series of events leading to the end of the world as they interpret Biblical prophecies. Let’s call this group the "Y2K Alarmists".

The second group that I identify are those who are equally as adamant in their belief, but whose beliefs are at the opposite end of the spectrum. These people are convinced that there is absolutely nothing to the whole "Y2K thing" — generally believing that the Y2K problem is a hoax perpetrated by someone — perhaps computer programmers planning to make huge amounts of money "correcting" a non-existing problem, or manufacturers of computer and other electronic equipment who have perpetrated the hoax in order to sell newer models of their equipment. The people in this group tend to see everyone who has any level of Y2K concerns as being a part of the unreasonably pessimistic group of Y2K alarmists. Let’s refer to this group as the "Y2K scoffers."

In my third group I include those who don’t quite know what to make of the whole issue. There might still be a few people who have not even heard about Y2K — but surely only if they’ve been comatose for the past two years or more. The people in this group find the whole issue quite perplexing. They find it hard to fathom how such a seemingly simple problem could have widespread consequences, but they’re not quite certain. They probably don’t own a computer, so may assume that none of the Y2K issues apply to them. They may have initially had some concerns about the Y2K problem, but have heard from some of the Y2K scoffers how ridiculous it is to be concerned about Y2K and how gullible anyone would have to be in order to be "taken in" by this hoax, and have decided that this is a much more comfortable and believable position than the recommendations promoted by the Y2K alarmists. So, not wanting to appear foolish to their friends among the scoffers, and not being exactly sure what they should do anyway, they decide to do nothing to prepare for Y2K. But they may have just a bit of nagging concern regarding the wisdom of this decision. Let’s call these folks the "perplexed."

Y2K Pragmatists

There is another group which at this time seems to be in the minority. The members of this group understand and believe that the Y2K issues are real and that if they had been left uncorrected would have caused major disruptions of services that all of us depend on daily in our modern society. This group includes those of us who have been (and/or still are) involved in correcting the Y2K problem for the organizations or businesses where we are employed. It also includes others who we have been exposed to and become convinced of the facts of the Y2K situation. The people in this group realize how severe the problem was (and still may be in some areas), but are aware of how much effort has been expended by qualified technicians in correcting this problem and how much money has been spent on the effort — both in salaries and replacement software and equipment. The people in this group also understand, however, that the magnitude and complexity of the project world-wide makes it impossible for anyone to be able to guarantee with certainty that there will be no Y2K-related failures and disruptions of services and business activities. The people in this group understand that even though the situation is not nearly so dismal as the Y2K alarmists predict, the situation is still uncertain enough to warrant making preparations to be pretty much self-sufficient for a few days, just in case there are some failures. Let’s call this group the "Y2K pragmatists."

It seems that the people who are firmly entrenched in either the "Y2K alarmist" or the "Y2K scoffers" groups are often the ones who have very little factual information on which to base their opinion, and generally refuse to seriously consider any information which might influence them to change their position on this matter. They seem to me to have chosen their position on this issue based totally on blind faith rather than having assessed the facts and attempted to come to a rational conclusion. They have a "belief" about Y2K rather than an opinion based on a study and analysis of the available information. Many (perhaps most) of the people in these two groups seem to be emotionally attached to their point of view and can become quite agitated if anyone (particularly anyone whose position is at the opposite extreme) attempts to seriously discuss the Y2K issue with them. I have made, or assisted with, Y2K presentations to church, civic, and school PTA groups and have tried to express how much effort has been and is being expended on the Y2K problem, and how much progress has been made, etc. I then go on to say that, in general, things seem to be in pretty good shape as regards the Y2K issue but that there still could be failures and that it is difficult to predict the impact of those failures. Afterwards I have heard individuals who heard the presentation debating the issue. Those who were alarmists remained alarmists, saying "Didn’t you hear what he said? He agrees with me. He said that there will be failures!" The scoffers who also heard the presentation retort "Yes I heard what he said, he said that everything is in good shape, which is exactly what I’ve always thought." The members of the perplexed group who heard the presentation are usually listening to the debate between the alarmists and the scoffers and are still scratching their heads in bewilderment. I go away thinking that my presentation made absolutely no difference because the members of the audience all either thought that I agreed with the position they already held or else they didn’t understand what I said. I’ve about come to the conclusion that my involvement in the Y2K project has prepared me for a political career.

I hope that I’m in the Y2K pragmatist group. That’s certainly where I see myself, and where I intend to be positioned. I have frequent contact with other Y2K project managers at other organizations (both public and private sector) and am quite pleased, overall, with the effort that has been made in most of these organizations. I am also pleased with the level of competence exhibited, for the most part, by the people who are responsible for the Y2K projects at most of these organizations. Still, as compared to the number of businesses and organizations in this country (or in the world) who have been or will be affected by the Y2K problem, the number that I have personal knowledge of is minute. All of us who have had a major role in the Y2K remediation effort realize how large a task it has been (and continues to be at many places), how many millions of lines of program code have been examined and modified as needed, how many embedded systems have been evaluated, and we realize that the probability of all this having been completed in EVEN ONE of these businesses or organizations with no error or oversight is practically nil. So, if there is almost no chance that even one large business or organization has completed their Y2K remediation 100% error-free, then what is the chance that all of us collectively (including the vast majority of those organizations about which I have no direct knowledge) have accomplished a 100% error-free conversion? If it were possible for it to be less than a 0% probability, then that is what I would pick. There WILL BE SOME Y2K-RELATED PROBLEMS — there’s just no other realistic possibility. Considering that we truly do have a global economy and considering how interconnected businesses are and how much we depend on suppliers for our daily operations, we must understand that failures of firms other than our own can have an impact on us. And, although the majority of the Y2K problems will likely occur at or shortly after the December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000 crossover, some will not manifest themselves until later. Large numbers of computer processing cycles do not run every day. Some run weekly, monthly, quarterly, semesterly, semi-annually, annually, or simply "on-demand." This means that although these programs have (hopefully) been tested, they will not actually have run a production cycle until the first time such a processing cycle is scheduled or requested. And there’s just something about real live production processing that seems to turn up a few additional "bugs" in computer programs that were not evident in testing — no matter how thoroughly the testers think they did their job. The good news, however, is that any computing organization of significant size experiences failures of their production processing more or less daily. That’s why we all have "on call" programmers available to correct minor problems and get critical processing back on-track pretty much on a 24 hr. per day, 7 day per week basis. So long as the Y2K problems are not so numerous as to overwhelm qualified technical staff available to deal with these problems, it is likely that most such problems may never even be obvious to the general public.

Although I know less about embedded chips and embedded processors than I know about business computer processing, I do know enough to understand that although date-related problems with these kinds of devices are relatively few and far between, some problems do exist. I seriously doubt that every single electronic card in every oil-producing well-head, in every single chemical plant, every single electrical generation plant, every single hospital or physician’s office and every single telecommunications facility has been pulled, and that the individual electronic chips on those cards have been verified as Y2K ready. That does not necessarily mean that these unchecked devices will fail — but it does mean that we don’t know for sure, and we probably don’t know the full range of possible consequences. Just as with the computer programs used in routine business processing, these kinds of devices also have occasional failures. If you don’t believe that, just ask yourself how many times you can remember having experienced a power outage, a loss of telephone service, failure of an ATM machine to provide cash on demand, etc. So, saying that some of these devices could fail at Y2K rollover does not necessarily mean catastrophic results. The impact will depend on the number of failures and the type of functions being performed by the device. And our personal perception of the severity of such failures may vary with whether any such failure affects us (or those who are close to us) in a direct manner. A failure of a kidney dialysis machine or other piece of critical medical equipment would be much more serious than a failure of my VCR (to use a trite example), but many of us still might consider a date-related failure of one single kidney dialysis machine somewhere in the world (or even in the nation) to be fairly minor (at least from a statistical perspective) unless that machine was connected to us or to someone that we know personally.

Less than 50 days and counting . . .

It is my opinion that the "Y2K alarmists" did all of us a valuable service early on by helping raise people’s awareness of the Y2K issue. But it appears to me that even in the face of widespread awareness of the Y2K problem, the vast majority of the public is more or less complacent about the issue. Even if they’re not truly Y2K scoffers, they do not really plan to make any personal preparations for the Y2K crossover. Perhaps fear of being ridiculed by their friends who are Y2K scoffers for being concerned enough to make any Y2K crossover plans contributes to this lack of preparation. Perhaps it’s just procrastination or complacency. But I think that those of us who are in the Y2K pragmatist group — and particularly those of us who have some level of responsibility for Y2K projects - have contributed to this complacency by making essentially only positive statements about the situation. Many of us were concerned that there might be widespread panic which would result in inappropriate actions on the part of the public, such as withdrawing large sums of money from checking accounts, hoarding unreasonable quantities of food and supplies, etc. In short, many of us were afraid that the general public would become "Y2K alarmists" — and we have worked very hard and been perhaps too successful in allaying the fears of the general population. An Associated Press article which ran in the Wednesday, November 10, 1999 issue of the "Denton Record-Chronicle" discussed a "final status report on Y2K readiness" issued by the White House recently. The large, bold headlines read "Final report on Y2K readiness reassuring." Very reassuring, and more cannon fodder for the scoffers, who will, in all likelihood read only the headline and proclaim "See — I told you that everything was going to be O.K. Probably never was any problem to begin with." But upon reading the entire article, one finds the following additional information: "But with just over 50 days remaining, the government’s top experts also cautioned that local government, schools, hospitals and small businesses continue to lag on repairs, with the worst among them adopting a ‘wait and see’ stance toward expected failures." A similar article ran in the November 11, 1999 issue of the Dallas Morning-News. In that article (after the initial "good news" statements), the following comments appear:

… the government’s final assessment of year 2000 problems notes that several local uncertainties remain around the country, particularly with schools, medical services and 911 emergency response systems. Survey respondents in all three categories showed at least one-third had not finished repairs.

Although it certainly could be worse, with less than 50 days remaining until the end of the year (including holidays and weekends) that is not, in my opinion, news worth cheering about.

In addition to the risk of technology-related failures, there is also a certain amount of risk of weather-related failures (if we have a winter storm at crossover time), and the public MIGHT assume that any such failures are Y2K-related. Additional problems should be anticipated simply because of this being the "mother of all new years eves" and the large number of celebrants who are likely to be out on the streets the night of December 31. Alex Petit, I.S. Director for the City of Denton asks the rhetorical question "If a drunk runs into a power pole and knocks out electricity for a section of the City, is that a Y2K problem?" Well, the answer is that it will be seen as a Y2K problem by some. Additional risk can be seen in the form of possible malicious mischief or even (God forbid) possible terrorist attacks. Although I do not have personal insight into this matter, I have seen reports on the Internet that the FBI is alerting law enforcement agencies to be aware of this possibility and advising them to take appropriate precautionary measures.

Be Prepared

I certainly do not want to see people panic and do foolish things, but I would like to see more people making plans and taking actions to allow them (and their families) to be essentially self-sufficient at, and for a reasonable period of time after, the Y2K crossover date. The American Red Cross recommends that people have on hand food, water, and other critical supplies in adequate amounts to be self-sustaining for a period of 72 hours. This is essentially the same as they recommend that we always have on hand so that we can take care of ourselves for that period of time in case of natural disasters. I can’t argue with that, except that I think it would be prudent to prepare for a bit longer period than the Red Cross recommends. In an article titled "The Importance of local Preparedness," Dr. Leon Kappelman points out that emergencies and disasters are first managed locally. Federal organizations such as FEMA get involved only after local resources have been tapped. Kappelman comments that people depend on themselves first, then on their local VOADs (which I believe stands for Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster). Kappleman also says that since Y2K presents the possibility that most localities will have some problems of their own, many calls for assistance may not be quickly honored, and this will strain VOAD and other resources, thus local preparedness is critically important. [Note: The referenced article can be found on the Web at http://www.pbs.org/y2kontarget/kappelman.html and URLs for Dr. Kappelman’s site and other PBS information can be found in the article "Y2K Links"]

So, since there is a possibility that the resources of emergency assistance organizations will be stretched thin, it seems prudent to be prepared for just a little longer than the minimal Red Cross recommendation. On the other hand, if we would all REALLY do as much as the Red Cross recommends, I would feel much better about our ability to make it through this potentially "unnatural disaster" unscathed. (URL for Red Cross Web site can be found in the article "Y2K Links").

Someone might want to ask "Hoggard, do you really think things are going to be bad enough that we’ll need those supplies?" My answer is "No, I really don’t think the probability is very high that we will — but my confidence level is not so high but that I still believe that making the 72-hour preparation (per Red Cross recommendations) is the prudent thing to do." I do not have to absolutely believe that an event will happen in order to acknowledge the possibility. Following (and even going beyond) the Red Cross recommendations does not cost much, if any, additional money in the long run. Canned food with a long shelf life can be eventually used whether or not we have a Y2K-related emergency. Stored water can either be discarded when no longer needed or used for watering plants, pets, etc. Batteries (for radios, flashlights, etc.) will last for a fairly long period of time on our closet or pantry shelves, so will not be wasted. Officials from the vast majority of governmental units (city, county, state, and federal) say that they believe that they’re "ready for Y2K." But they also go on to say that a certain level of individual and family preparation would be wise. Unfortunately, most of us seem to hear the first part of the message, but totally ignore the other, cautionary, part. If the City of Denton (just as an example) is concerned enough about the issue to recommend the precautions that they have (see "Dentonites Guide to Y2K" and other related documents — available on the City of Denton Web site [URL can be found in the article "Y2K Links"] ) then I believe that as a citizen I have the responsibility to take their recommendations seriously, act on them, and perhaps go a bit further than their basic recommendations — just in case.

In most of our families, if we looked back one or two generations and learned about the customs and lifestyle of those people we would find that these folks routinely stockpiled food and other critical supplies. This was not necessarily done in preparation for any specific event so much as it was just a way of life. Being able to run to the store and easily purchase almost anything we want in a matter of minutes is a relatively recent phenomenon when looked at from a historical perspective. This lifestyle has resulted in our being much more dependent on someone else to provide critical, sometimes life-sustaining products and services than our grandparents or parents were. This dependence on others for critical products in our personal lives is somewhat analogous to the "just in time" delivery of materials for manufacturing processes which results in these firms having only minimal inventories of materials. This practice makes individuals and businesses more susceptible to any kind of disruptions of our supply chains. Many businesses are now building up inventories prior to the Y2K crossover. As individuals we would be well advised to follow their lead.

One of my concerns is that the large number of people who are in the "perplexed" group will have made no preparations for the Y2K crossover. Then if there are ARE noticeable problems, they might quickly become convinced that the "Y2K alarmists" were right all along, and this COULD lead to significant panic and inappropriate actions on the part of people in this group. Those who are better prepared will have much less cause to panic in the face of any such problems. And if no such problems arise, then their preparations will have been merely low-cost insurance against that possibility — and the possibility is real whether or not problems actually occur.