Articles
Solution to the Y2K Problem Requires a Compliance Plan
By Ray K. HarrisMay 29, 1998
It seems impossible that the publicity associated with the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem ("the millennium bug") could escape anyone's attention. Seminars, articles and announcements seem to have been carried in by El Nino.
This flood of information at least implies that it contains something useful. Although the problem itself is understandable, the belated media hype is not.
The Y2K problem arises from the inability of computer programs to accurately calculate dates from the two-digit fields that were adopted by computer programmers to save space in memory. The need to conserve memory no longer drives programming practices, but many databases are filled with two-digit years. When those digits become 00 (the millennium), the computer may assume the date is 1900 instead of 2000. Calculations will be based on a 1900 date. The consequences are debatable, but the problem clearly does exist.
The problem is most readily apparent in legacy mainframe systems used by large institutions such as banks, insurance companies and governmental agencies. It also exists, however, in networked systems that utilize old (and sometimes not so old) application software. Microsoft recently announced that several products including Windows 95 and Windows NT, have Y2K problems, most of which are "minor."
Even products that are not programmable but contain embedded chips may have been designed with a two-digit date field.
The solution to the Y2K problem is a combination of rewriting software and replacing software and hardware. A number of companies, including Viasoft, headquartered in Phoenix, have been offering Y2K solutions for many years. The software community (and information-technology specialists in particular) have been aware of this problem for some time. It is generally assumed that companies with a serious problem will simply not be able to achieve a solution if they have not even begun to address the issue.
The time required to implement solutions and the resources available ( including scarce programmers already allocated to other projects ) may preclude rewriting software. The cost of replacing equipment and software may also be prohibitive. Inevitably, some companies, even with good intentions and reasonable efforts, will not have time to fix all of the bugs endemic in a software development project.
The resulting flood of seminars by instant experts, however, arrives too late to solve the problem. Knowledgeable experts are not now forming task forces; instead, knowledgeable experts have been advising clients for years on the available alternatives.
What to do if you have no Year 2000 compliance plan? Four options remain:
1. Begin to position for litigation. This will require identifying other parties who might be liable for creating, distributing, installing or maintaining the defective software/hardware, demanding that they take steps to mitigate future damages and paying any and all insurance premiums that might reimburse litigation expenses and indemnify for the damages incurred.
This is reminiscent of the "bigger fool" theory of investing under which you could always theoretically shift your risk of loss to someone less informed. In any event, do not warrant Y2K compliance to others and allow them to shift the risk of loss to you.
2. Lobby for governmental action to limit your potential liability to others. Maybe a legislature can declare the problem an "act of God." This is an interesting solution, but incompatible with option 1. Insurance policies exclude acts of God. The California Legislature is considering an interim solution under which only damages for bodily injury and the cost to replace the software can be recovered.
3. Buy pencils. You can use them yourself in January 2000 (to perform calculations previously done by your computers) and you can make a tidy profit by selling them to others similarly situated. See "bigger fool" theory above.
4. Ride out the inevitable interruptions and inconveniences. The world will not end. It would be preferable to avoid these effects, but that may not be possible if efforts are not already under way.
Focus on "mission critical" applications. Do not carry a pencil inventory into February 2000. Your computer will be up ¾ and pencil prices will be down.
Attending seminars is likely only to make you nervous, and emotional harm is excluded under the proposed California legislation anyway.
The Business Journal, on May 29, 1998, in the Comment section on Page 87