HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-0119 Study Session PACKET ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
340 SO. PIONEER STREET ASHLAND,OREGON 97520
COMMISSIONERS: """• Kenneth J.Mickelsen
Director
Teri Coppedge == o
JoAnne Eggers
Sally D.Jones TEL.:(541)488-5340
Rick Landt FAX:(541)488-5314
Laurie MacGraw - �'. REGON `•+' a-mail:ashparks®wave.net
MEMORANDUM
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council
And Ashland Parks and Recreation Corrqnission
FROM Mike Freeman, City Administrator ( „ ),
And Kenneth J. Mickelsen, Director Pars and Recreation Department
DATE January 14, 1999
SUBJECT Summary of discussion at Joint Study Session, January 12, 1999
It is our understanding that the Council and Commission came to consensus on the following
items pertaining to the Calle Guanajuato Restoration Project during the Joint Study Session:
• That the Council will be responsible for determining flood control and flood management
issues related to water conveyance through the Calle area.
• That the Commission will be responsible for the planning process for the project and will
develop the overall design for restoration/rehabilitation of the area. Cwl It du-G& .
• That the proposed Project Purpose as outlined the joint memorandum dated January 12, 1999
remains the same except for the target date of March 1999. No specific date was included in
the statement.
• That the Commission would update the Council approximately every 60 days as to the
progress of the planning process. 60 eonslfu'ch`On \0 51 td�F , S�i11 Al Af 7WO _0 t b0�Ott
• That there was support for retaining the present functions on the eakt side of the creek.
• That the final design plan for the project will need to be approved by both the Council and
the Commission.
• And, related to discussion of the design concepts which were presented, that the concept
illustrated by the open stream channel which eliminated a large section of the east side
walkway and drive would not be pursued as an option.
Consensus among Councillors: (Mike Freeman)
That the goal is to create a design which can convey a 100 year flood yet be functional and
aesthetically pleasing.
Concensus among Commissioners: (Ken Mickelsen)
That the Commission will move forward to develop a competitive selection process through an
RFP or RFQ for selecting a landscape architect for the project.
Staff would like confirmation from the Council and Commission that there is consensus on the
items listed above.
Home of Famous Lithia Park
City of Ashland
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
January 4, 1999
ATTENDANCE:
Present: Teri Coppedge, JoAnne Eggers, Sally Jones, Rick Landt, Laurie MacGraw, Council
Liaison Carole Wheeldon
Absent: None
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair MacGraw called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. at the
Department Office, 340 S. Pioneer Street, upper Lithia Park.
II. RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO CITY COUNCIL
Chair MacGraw indicated that the sole item on the agenda was the reconsideration of the request by the
Commission to the City Council for an exemption from the formal competitive selection procedure in
selecting a landscape architect for the Calle Guanajuato Restoration Project. Commissioners reviewed
the following items prior to beginning discussion:
• The motion passed by the Commission at its December 14, 1998 Regular Meeting authorizing that
the request be made to the Council at the Council's earliest convenience.
• The memorandum from Chair MacGraw on behalf of the Commission making the request to the
Council dated December 29, 1998.
• The Council Communication from City staff related to the request dated January 5, 1999.
Chair MacGraw said that she had called the Special Meeting because of comments she had received
within the past week from a couple of people. Newly elected Commissioner Rick Landt, in particular,
had strongly expressed his point of view and several reasons why he felt that the request for an
exemption should be reconsidered. She said that she was committed to beginning the new year on the
Commission in a spirit of team building and respect for varying points of view. Therefore, prior to the
request going to the City Council, she felt that it was important to reconsider the request with the newly
elected Commission. She asked that Commissioner Landt present his comments on why he would like
the request reconsidered. Commissioner Landt placed written comment dated January 4, 1999 into the
record. (See attached.) He indicated that Commissioners had received copies earlier in the day.
In a brief discussion of procedure, it was determined that if the Commission chose to rescind the
previous motion of December 14, 1998 that either Commissioner Coppedge or MacGraw would need to
make the motion to rescind as they had voted in the affirmative on the December motion.
Briefly summarizing his written comments, Commissioner Landt said that he felt that following the
competitive selection process would demonstrate that the Commission wants an open process, would
maximize the public's perception that the process was open, and would support the Commission's goal
to pursue excellence for the design plan for the Calle area.
Following his comments, Chair MacGraw indicated that although she personally supported asking for an
exemption for the reasons outlined in the Commission memorandum to the Council she also could see
the merit of Commissioner Landt's point of view. She said that therefore, for the sake of teamwork, she
would be supportive of rescinding the previous motion which stated that the request would be sent to the
Council "at its earliest convenience." She asked for other comments and points of view.
Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 2 of 3
Special Meeting -January 4, 1999
Reconsideration of request for exemption from competitive selection process-continued
Indicating that landscape architect Brian McCarthy would be presenting the conceptual ideas to the
Council and Commission at the joint Study Session on January 12", Councillor Wheeldon suggested
that perhaps keeping an open mind to the question of an exemption would be appropriate until after that
presentation. Perhaps some kind of consensus might be found among Councillors and Commissioners
following the presentation of the conceptual ideas which would facilitate discussion related to choosing
to request or authorize an exemption. She said that she felt it would be foolish not to take advantage of
that option if there was ultimately a consensus among Councilors and Commissioners that it would save
time and the taxpayers some money.
Commissioner Coppedge indicated that she was reticent to entirely rescind the motion. She said that
the Commission's prior experience with Brian McCarthy's work has left her with the opinion that he
would do a very fine job on the Calle project and that she would prefer to continue with his firm rather
than take the time out for a selective bidding process. She said that, at best, she would be willing to
postpone the request to the Council until its second meeting in January.
Councillor Wheeldon asked to clarify a point. She said that if the Commission chose to rescind the
motion this evening, did that mean that the discussion of an exemption was completely off the table.
Chair MacGraw said no; it would mean that the motion simply did not exist. If it chose to do so at some
future date, the Commission could again pass a motion to request an exemption.
Brief discussion also occurred around why it has taken so long to get the conceptual drawings and ideas
presented. Chair MacGraw indicated that she would take responsibility for not seeking to have the Calle
area addressed more quickly. By way of explanation, she said that the Commission's and Department
staff's first focus was to Lithia Park proper. Commissioner Coppedge also pointed out that because of
its unique circumstances, the Calle area needs joint input by both Commission and Council related to
questions of responsibility. As to why the conceptual drawings have not been made available to
Commissioners, Councillors and staff to date, Commissioner Eggers said that she has heard some
reticence expressed about having the ideas presented before the balance of the planning process was
ready to begin. Chair MacGraw amplified saying that, although Mr. McCarthy's work on the conceptual
ideas has been ready for some time, if they were offered early that the public's perception might be that
the planning process was continuing prior to scheduling additional public meetings.
Commissioner Jones said that as she read the Council resolution pertaining to exemptions to the
competitive selection process that they could only be granted in case.of emergencies and that, since
this was not an emergency, it wouldn't apply anyway. Commissioner Eggers also commented that it
was her understanding that the current Council criteria for granting an exemption did not meet this
particular circumstance.
Commissioner Coppedge said that she felt that because it was a Council decision to determine whether
or not the request fit its rules for an exemption that the Commission making the request was not
inappropriate. Because granting the request is a City Council function, the only decision the
Commission needs to make it whether or not to make the request so that the Council can consider it.
She said that it would be her preference not to rescind the motion but to have a second motion which
would state that the time line for presentation for the request be presented to the Council after the
January 12" Study Session or the Council's second meeting in January rather than its first meeting in
January.
Commissioner Jones inquired whether or not any Commissioner's vote or opinions related to requesting
an exemption would be changed after hearing Mr. McCarthy's presentation on January 12'". There was
no response to the question.
Commissioner Coppedge expressed strong reticence about making a motion to rescind the December
motion. She said that although she believes strongly in the points which Commissioner Landt made
related to City government, both the Council and Commission, following its own rules that even if we
went through the competitive selection process that there is a very good chance that Cameron,
Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 3 of 3
Special Meeting-January 4, 1999
Reconsideration of request exemption from competitive selection process-continued
McCarthy would still be selected for the project. And, if that is the case, we would have wasted time on
the RFP process that could have been spent on the planning process and that the window of
opportunity for in-stream work related to the Calle would be missed this summer because of the length
of time required for the permitting process. She said that what she wanted to do was to keep our
options open and that she did not believe that simply rescinding the motion would be the best way to do
that.
MOTION Commissioner Coppedge made a motion to rescind the motion made at the December 14, 1998
Regular Meeting pertaining to requesting an exemption from the competitive selection process for a
landscape architect for the Calle project and to ask the City Council that they consider the same request
at the first Council meeting subsequent to the joint Study Session scheduled for January 12, 1999.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Reiterating that her reason for calling the meeting this evening was to facilitate teamwork on the part of
Commissioners and her willingness to support rescinding the December motion with the understanding
that the topic could then be addressed at a later date if the Commission chose to do so, Chair MacGraw
asked Vice-Chair Coppedge to accept the gavel to enable her to make a motion. The gavel was passed
to Commissioner Coppedge.
MOTION Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to rescind the motion passed on December 14, 1998
authorizing a request to the City Council for exemption from the competitive selection process for
selecting a landscape architect for Phase II of the Calle Guanajuato Restoration Project. Commissioner
Jones seconded.
The vote was: 4 yes - 1 no (Coppedge)
Prior to adjourning the meeting, Chair MacGraw indicated that there was one brief order of business she
would like to have addressed. At the December meeting Commissioners had discussed moving the
January Regular Meeting to Monday, January 11". She asked whether or not Commissioners wanted to
keep that date or move it back to the regular meeting date of Monday, January 18, 1999. By
consensus, Commissioners chose to hold the Regular Meeting on December 18'".
Respectfully submitted,
29
Ann Benedict, Business Manager
Ashland Parks and Recreation Department
• Reasons for Following the Competitive Bid Requirement for Upcoming Design
Work on Guanajuato Way
To: Parks Commissioners
From: Rick Landt
Date: 4 Jan 99
version 4.6
The Parks Commission, at its December 14th meeting, voted to request a waiver from the
competitive bid process for the restoration/design of Guanajuato Way. This request for a waiver
is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 5th. To paraphrase, the stated reasons for
the Parks Commission requesting the waiver were: 1) "We need to complete this project as soon
as possible, and forgoing the competitive bid process will allow us to work instream this
summer," and 2) "We like Brian McCarthy and believe he would do a good job."
The Guanajuato Way project area, including Ashland Creek, along with Lithia Park, the Plaza,
and the surrounding historic buildings, is, in many peoples' minds, the cultural, spiritual, and
economic heart of Ashland. Given the importance of this area, a carefully thought out,
comprehensive and creative design process seems appropriate to insure the best possible, long
lasting design. We need to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the flood, and
redevelop Guanajuato Way in a manner that supports a broad range of the community's
environmental, cultural and economic values. A competitive bid process that includes actively
soliciting Oregon's best designers and public participation specialists, is our best opportunity to
meet these goals and to recreate Guanajuato Way in the most positive and dynamic way.
For the following reasons, I believe that it is important that the Parks Commission rescind its
waiver request to the City Council, and follow the standard competitive process to select a
contractor to accomplish the design work on Guanajuato Way:
1) Only in extraordinary circumstances should government make exceptions to its own rules.
This situation does not seem to be extraordinary nor an emergency. It would be difficult to
construe the current situation of the Guanajuato Way project to meet the standard of
"emergency" defined in Chapter 2.50 of the City's municipal code. That Chapter defines an
emergency as "circumstances that could not have been reasonably foreseen that create a
substantial risk of loss, damage, interruption of services or threat to the public health or safety
that requires prompt execution of a contract to remedy the condition." I understand that the
City Attorney's interpretation is that Chapter 2.50 does not apply. I do not understand why a
clear, relevant definition of "emergency" would not apply, when the related section cited by
the City Attorney, Resolution 94-21, contains no definition of "emergency?"
2) A year after Cameron • McCarthy • Gilbert were hired to start the process of redesigning and
restoring Guanajuato Way, there are no design products available from the project and the
last public input meeting was October 27, 1997. Over the past year, this project has moved
ahead slowly, not urgently as in an emergency situation.
3) A competitive bidding process should have been used last year, instead of just awarding a
contract to Cameron • McCarthy • Gilbert. The contract amount for hiring Brian McCarthy
was just under the $15,000 amount triggering the requirement for a competitive bid. This
circumvented the spirit of the law requiring competitive bidding for projects over $15,000,
because it should have been clear at that time that to complete the job, much more than
$15,000 would have to be spent, as is now being demonstrated by this request for a waiver to
basically extend the original contract by an additional amount greater than $15,000.
4) Even under an optimistic interpretation of the scenario outlined by staff at the December 14,
1998 Parks Commission meeting, there is a high probability that there will not be sufficient
time to gather and analyze public input, develop a plan, get the plan approved, and obtain
regulatory permits to work in Ashland Creek this summer during the June to September
period when instream work is allowed. If any step in the process is delayed for any reason, or
if the time it takes for any of the steps is at the long end of the estimates given by staff, there
will be no instream work done this summer. If the timeline is not met, declaring an
"emergency," and avoiding the competitive bid process will look short-sighted and
unnecessary, and will bring into question the motives for obtaining a waiver of the
competitive bid process in the first place.
5) Attempting to complete the design process in an unrealistically short time frame may lead to
an emphasis on expediency, rather than focusing on what it takes to get the project done right.
6) By using a competitive bid process that encourages a variety of perspectives embodied in
serious proposals from prospective firms, the City and Parks Department stands to learn more
about the range of what is possible for Guanajuato Way. Additionally, the process of writing a
request for proposals, which will only be done if there is a competitive bid process, is an
opportunity to clarify and sharpen the focus of what needs to be accomplished.
7) There are firms in Oregon more qualified than Cameron • McCarthy • Gilbert to do this
critically important work for Ashland. Since one of the reasons listed in Resolution 94-21 for
justifying an exemption to the competitive bid process is if "the Council finds there is only
one person or entity within a reasonable area that can provide services of the type and quality
required," the following question arose: Is CMG the only firm in Oregon qualified to provide
these services? To try to address this question, I spoke with design professionals from Eugene
and Portland, including a professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Oregon. I
described this project as an important public, urban space along a creek, with the need for a
strong public participation component. I asked them to give me names of firms skilled in this
type of project. None of the people I spoke with listed CMG. When asked specifically about
CMG, CMG were described as competent and sound designers, but with limited experience in
public participation and with similar limitations of experience in incorporating natural
streams into urban, public spaces.
The following firms were described by more than one source as having extensive experience
in the public input process, in design of urban, public spaces along bodies of water, or both,
and as being outstanding in their field:
Portland firms:
• Carol Mayer-Reed
• Green Works
• Murase & Associates Inc.
• Perron Collaborative
Eugene firms:
• MIG Inc.
The only basis for exempting professional service contracts from the competitive bid-process
provided by Resolution 94-21, rule #12, are if the contract amount is less than $15,000, if
"emergency conditions require prompt execution of the contract", or if "there is only one person
or entity within a reasonable area that can provide services of the type and quality required." In
this case, as outlined above, none of these requirements have been met.
.F I
The Ashland
Y2K Community
Preparedness
Project
"Create Awareness/Organize
Preparedness"
January 19, 1999
i
SUMMARIES
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL
Takes the position that no one knows what will
happen. But problems could be very serious and thus
it makes sense to prepare for the worse.
LONDON OBSERVER
UK Government Task Force advises Brits to store two
weeks supply of all essentials.
GORDON WHITE PAPER EXCERPTS
Excerpts from a four part White Paper. Includes a lucid
explanation of both the complexity and pervasiveness
of the Y2K problem. Excellent discussion of the
embedded chip problem and its ramifications on all
portions of society.
Y2K: SOCIAL CHAOS OR TRANSFORMATION?
Covers nature of the problem and then proceeds to
• show how cooperation across the board is essential if
societal chaos is to be avoided. Open the possibilities
for beneficial outcomes possible from Y2K.
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUBCOMMITTEE
REPORT
Outlines problem and highlights the severity of
disruption possible in government and private
industry services if Y2K is not adequately addressed.
TESTIMONY FROM CONGRESSIONAL SPECIAL
COMMITTEE ON YEAR 2000 PROBLEMS
Testimony from Senators Bennett, Dodd and
Moynihan
NEWS RELEASES & CREDIBLE ONLINE SOURCES
OF INFORMATION
•
31 /z 'elf
Y4 . wx THE NEW 01 TIMES EDITORIALS;
• �• ARTHUR OOHS SULZBERGERJR Publisher
- JOSEPH LELNlTLD,E-eu(ice Editor
- BILLRELLER.,Managing Editor;
GERALD M.BOYD,Deputy Managing Editor -
_ JOHN M.GEDDES,Deputy Managing Editor -;
--- .f- Assistant Managing Editors
SOMA GOLDEN I.
BEHA JACK ROSE\THA
,ae►p4VOy' f{L-6■ CAROLYN L LEE ALLAN h1.5lEGAL
HOWELL RAINES,Editorial Page Editor'
- Founded in 1851 - .PHILIP M.BOFFEY,Deputy Editorial Page Editor
ADOLPH S.OCHS.Publisher 1896-1935 JANET L ROBINSON,President,General Manager
ARTHUR HAYS SULZBERGER.Publisher 1935.1961 DANIEL H.COHEN. Senior VP,Aduertisiig
ORVIL E.DRYFOOS,Publisher 1961-1963 RICHARD H.GILMAN. Senior VA Opa'atiOns -
ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER,Publisher 1963.1992 SCOTT H.HEERIN-CANEDY, V.P,Planning
MARC Z.RRAIIER, VP,Labor Relations
DENNIS L.STERN. VP,Human Resources-
JA1fES L.TERRILL. VP,Ghie(Financial Ofar
DAVID ATHURM, VP,Production
PENELOPE hJUSEABERNATHY,,PMSidenq News Scrciccs
MARTINA NISENHOLTZ,President,Electronic Media
The Millennium Bug Looms
Fear of chaos in the world's computer systems and suppliers at home and overseas.The Securities
in the year 2000 may be hard for most people to take and Exchange Commission is actively monitoring
• seriously. The temptation is to assume that since efforts to root out problems throughout the financial
technicians created the problem, technicians can industry, but much more needs to be done.
solve it. But with only 516 days until the fateful President Clinton has belatedly stepped up the
turnover, it is clear that the United States is not Federal campaign to increase public awareness by
imoving fast enough to fix its computers or prepare establishing a Council on Year 2000 Conversion,but
for significant disruptions. Instead of addressing a he and Al Gore, the First Technophile, should do
potential crisis, many leaders in business and gov- even more. They and sympathetic members of
ernment are complacent,declining to act for fear of Congress should win passage of legislation to en
lawsuits or engaging in political fights.Their lack of courage companies to share information with one
attention could be crippling. another, disclose problems to the public and move
- The so-called millennium bug arises from chips more aggressively.to correct them. At present,
and software coded to mark the years with only two many businesses are afraid to act out of fear that
m
digits. If not adjusted .by Jan.. 1, 2000, yriad any corrective efforts that fell short would simply
systems will "roll over like the odometer on an old invite lawsuits charging that they knew their Sys-
Chevy,"as Wired magazine put it,effectively think tems were flawed.
iug they had just jumped back to the year 1900. No If the millennium,bug problem were simply a
one is sure what will happen.The breakdowns could matter of software,it it would be bad enough. But
be minor,or they could disable everything from air experts say the most dangerous aspect of the prob-
traffic control systems to financial networks,power lea is that so many systems — from missiles to
grids, hospitals and home appliances. Some econo- natural-gas pipelines to hospital equipment— rely
mists warn of a global recession. on billions of tiny chips embedded where they would
It makes sense to prepare for the worst. The have to be found by engineers and reprogrammed
Federal Government has made progress but is far or replaced. Congress should consider tax incen-
behind in upgrading air traffic systems, Medicare, tives or subsidies to encourage businesses to identi-
ttie Pentagon and other sectors. In addition, a petty fy vulnerabilities and recruit professionals,includ-
badget dispute between the House and Senate has ing retired people.
blocked $3 billion in emergency funds to speed up It may well be that all these problems can.be
the process. A major problem is that even if the managed. But experts recommend that employees
Federal Government is in perfect shape, its sys- ask their bosses about what is being done to get
• tems could become impaired by interacting with ready.If the answer is that there is nothing to worry
state and local governments, where potential prob- about, it is time to start worrying. It will cost
lems are rampant. Similarly, big businesses could billions to fix potential problems.But that is nothing
fix their own systems only to have them break down compared to what it will cost if the fears of many
by contact with noncompliant customers, clients experts prove correct.
•
startr�e.cmn
611
Natiani14T4rid
Uted itma
wt Are you concemed about the Y2K"bug"?
The Technology Page
_Published Monday,Dk be 14,1998
Britons urged to stock up food in case of Y2K bug shortages
London Observer Service
LONDON -- Britons have been warned to stock up with two weeks' emergency food rations in anticipation of
"millennium bug"-related shortages.
The government's millennium bug task force, Action 2000, is advising every British household to take sensible
precautions against the millennium bug by buying extra food.
In a statement indicating the level of concern in official circles, the Department of Trade and Industry-funded task
force, charged with minimizing potential damage caused by the bug, has said that contingency planning for a •
worst-case scenario should start as soon as possible.
"We are talking about people having a judicious amount of surplus food in their kitchen cupboards. Anyone sensible
would plan for this," said Gwynneth Flower, head of Action 2000.
Flower's warning has emerged amid increasing concern over the impact of the millennium bug-- a computer code
anomaly that may not allow many of the world's computers and a substantial percentage of computer chips to
function properly when their internal clocks reach 2000.
Despite repeated assurances that the bug will be ironed out, it has now emerged that many government, utilities and
corporate computer systems will not be ready for the turn of the century. According to Action 2000, the British
government will issue a leaflet next spring or summer explaining what sort of food people should stockpile.
"Tins, dried foods and grains will be very useful," Flower said. "Cans of soup, maybe half a dozen curries, tuna and
packets of biscuits. Long-life milk would also be a good idea, although we wouldn't advise people to stockpile wate .
"We are talking about the sort of common-sense provision that you would automatically do to ensure against any
potential emergency," she said.
•
Excerpts from a White Paper written by Dr. Paula Gordon (biography follows text)
"Earth, we have a problem." It is known as Y2K.
The Year 2000 technology crisis involves computer software and hardware on the one
hand and date sensitive embedded systems on the other. Those addressing Year 2000
challenges have typically focused on the former and have too often failed to fully
understand and acknowledge the challenges and threats posed by date sensitive embedded
systems. Efforts to address the technology crisis have also tended to be based on a limited
awareness and understanding of the interconnected nature of the crisis, and the potential
for the cascading of failures and problems. Efforts to understand and address the threats
have too often overlooked the implications of the crisis for domestic stability and national
security, not to mention global stability and security.....
An increasing number of people are calling attention to it. Edward Yourdon and Jennifer
Yourdon have written a national best seller entitled "Time Bomb 2000". On August 2,
1998, the New York Times even ran an editorial criticizing the President, the Vice
President, and the head of the government's Y2K efforts, noting the ineffectiveness of the
Federal government in addressing the problem and urging that needed action be taken.
One might have expected that the editorial would have served as a call to arms. It did not.
Not even the New York Times itself has been focusing the attention on this problem that
• their own editorial board said was needed....
Public officials have a responsibility to address problems that pose a threat to society. It is
they who have the bully pulpit. It is they who should have the best interest of the public at
heart. It is they who can most readily mobilize, redirect, and deploy resources to address
a set of problems with the magnitude and complexity of Y2K. What is preventing public
officials from taking the necessary action? What actions should they be taking to address
Y2K? Why are their current actions falling far short?....
Remediating computer code problems, however, is only one aspect of the Y2K problem.
In the White Paper the problem is defined as a set of three interrelated problems. These
involve the following: the computer hardware/software- information
technology/communications technology problem, the non-Y2K compliant date-sensitive
embedded systems problem, and connectivity and interdependency problems. Senator
Bob Bennett of Utah may have been the first public official to speak in terms of these
three parts of the problem in his nationally televised speech on Y2K before the National
Press Club on July 15, 1998.
The information technology aspect of the Y2K problem has been given far more attention
than the other two. While the potential impacts of that aspect of the problem are most
widely understood, the potential impacts of the other two aspects of the problem are both
less acknowledged and even less understood. The nature and scope of these potential
impacts are discussed in the White Paper. While there is some increased awareness of
1
these impacts, there is much too little visible attention being given them by persons in
roles of public responsibility....
One way of arriving at a comprehensive definition of Y2K is to imagine three circles
(Figure 1)[not transmitted for inclusion in this reproduction.]:....
The inner circle: The inner circle is the Y2K problem understood primarily as a computer
hardware/software/information technology and communications technology problem.
The second circle: The second circle encompassing the inner circle represents the non-
compliant date-sensitive embedded system aspect of the Y2K problem.
The third circle: The third circle encompassing the first two circles is the connectivity or
interdependency aspect of the problem: The developed world has become increasingly
dependent on technology. Our standard of living would not be the same without
technology. The Y2K problem jeopardizes the fragile interconnected linkages that have
made this standard of living attainable. If these fragile connections break, no part of our
lives will remain untouched. Depending on the severity and the consequences of the
breaks, the economic arrangements that have helped us maintain a high standard of living
could be drastically affected. This in turn would affect social stability and could lead to
the breakdown of social order.
The corruption or degradation of computer data can damage critical infrastructure. For •
instance, the electric power industry, the banking industry, the financial services industry,
the telecommunications industry, trade, manufacturing can all be drastically affected.
While the inner circle definition of Y2K can be associated with infrastructure disruptions,
the second circle— malfunctioning non-Y2K compliant, date-sensitive embedded systems
—can be associated with both infrastructure disruptions and technological disasters. The
latter could include Bhopal-type and Chemobyl-type disasters. The latter could also
include malfunctions involving defense systems; chemical manufacturing plants; sites and
facilities involving hazardous or radiological materials; including biological or chemical
warfare materials; refiners; gas or oil pipelines (sometimes contiguous with
telecommunications cables); tankers, and off-shore oil rigs.
The inner circle, as well as the second circle, could give rise to disruptions and disasters
that could have a cascading effect, resulting in the kind of complex emergencies that can
be a part of wartime situations. A mix of infrastructure disruptions and technological
disasters would make emergency management efforts, including recovery, the greatest of
challenges.
The impacts associated with the third circle really amount to the cumulative impacts of the
first and second circles, These cumulative impacts can affect social stability and the
cohesiveness of the body politic. The cumulative impacts could make it impossible to
2
• conduct any but the simplest forms of business. These impacts could include widespread
unemployment and economic instability and uncertainty.
If disruptions impacted even an isolated locale and if it is were not known how long the
disruptions might continue, the social fabric of that small community could begin to
unravel. If this situation were to be compounded by shortages of food, water, fuel, and
energy supplies, and if little or nothing had been done to prepare for the possibility of such
shortages, then civil unrest and conflict could well follow.
Commonsense dictates that once there is an awareness of such possibilities that actions
should then be taken to address such challenges. In determining what actions to take, it
would be helpful to arrive at some estimate of the nature and severity of the impacts that
can be expected and the likely duration of those impacts. Proactive steps could be taken
which could serve to minimize the impacts in significant ways.
Impacts will be at a level of 8 (on a scale of 1-10)* unless the government assumes its
proper leadership role and adopts a proactive, problem solving, crisis-oriented approach to
addressing the threats and challenges of Y2K and the embedded systems crisis.....
Contingency planning
While there has been a heightened sense of the need for "contingency planning", the
• meaning given those words can vary greatly. To some "contingency planning" is about
planning those actions that will be taken after a problem, emergency, or crisis occurs.
Contingency planning may not necessarily include an awareness of action steps needed to
minimize risks. Contingency planning may simply focus on considering different courses
of actions that may need to be taken when and if the problem occurs. It can be argued that
this is indeed an extremely shortsighted way of addressing a time certain period of
potential crisis. Actions aimed at mitigating the risks should be given the highest priority.
Contingency planning needs to be done in tandem with the implementation of action plans
to reduce risks.
Contingency planning efforts are needed that take into consideration the possibility of
major infrastructure disruptions coupled with technological disasters. Contingency
planning efforts are needed that are based on the assumption that such impacts could have
either permanent consequences or consequences lasting years. Scenarios describing
different levels of severity of impacts need to be considered. In doing so, the
consequences of failures to take immediate action might also become more apparent.
Contingency planning must be joined with disaster preparedness planning and actions,
along with mitigation efforts and crisis response and recovery planning, including pre-
deployment actions.
• *Dr. Gordon defines a level 8 as depression; infrastructure crippled; markets collapse;
local martial law.
3
Embedded Systems •
While information technology problems have the potential for extraordinary impacts on all
aspects of the nation's and the world's infrastructure, date sensitive embedded systems
failures can pose even greater challenges, particularly if they occur at the same time as
other infrastructure disruptions. Embedded systems failures can pose additional threats to
health and safety, including additional threats to social stability and environmental
sustainability.
Embedded systems failures can trigger technological disasters which can impede
mobilization efforts to deal with infrastructure disruptions. Infrastructure disruptions could
in and of themselves be expected to tax emergency response capabilities to the limit.
What are embedded systems?
The following definition is taken from the United Kingdom's Action 2000 web site:
"Embedded systems contain 'programmed instructions running via processor chips....They
perform control, protection, and monitoring tasks....In broad terms embedded systems are
programmable devices or systems which are generally used to control or monitor things
like processes, machinery, environments, equipment, and communications."
It is estimated that there may be from 10 to 25 billion embedded systems in existence. It is •
known that some small percentage of these are date sensitive. Of these a small, but
significant percentage are not Year 2000 compliant. Estimates range from 0.2% to over
1%. That would mean that from 20 million to 250 million embedded systems failures could
occur owing to the Year 2000-related non-compliance problems. (Source: The Gartner
Group).
These include small failures that can have major impacts. Malfunctions could occur in all
manner of equipment, devices, appliances, and systems found in homes, hospitals,
buildings, plants, facilities, and systems. Malfunctions could occur as well in everything
from rail and subway systems to water purification plants, wastewater disposal plants, oil
and gas pipelines, oil refineries, oil tankers, offshore oil platforms, chemical plants,
manufacturing plants, coal-fired plants, nuclear power plants, nuclear and other hazardous
waste facilities and laboratories, biological and chemical warfare storage facilities, and
weapons systems of all kinds. When embedded systems fail, they can fail in a variety of
unpredictable ways. Small, seemingly insignificant failures can trigger other system
failures.
There is simply not sufficient time and manpower to identify, assess, repair, replace, or
"work around" all of the date sensitive embedded systems prior to January 1, 2000.
(Indeed, some malfunctions could be triggered well in advance of that date.)Efforts are
destined to be far less than 100% successful in making necessary repairs or taking other •
4
• preventive or mitigating actions. In many cases, shut downs will be the only viable
alternative.
The failures that are bound to occur may be expected to have an impact on the health and
safety of nearby populations, on social cohesion and civility, on food and water supplies,
on the economy, on foreign relations, and on the sustainability of the environment. Such
impacts could affect small areas, as well as large regions all over the world. Commonsense
dictates that greatly expanded efforts be made by the public and private sectors, nationally
and globally, to identify, prioritize, and minimize the risks posed by those date sensitive
embedded systems posing the greatest threats.
Current efforts to address Year 2000 computer software and hardware problems and
embedded systems problems are grossly inadequate nationally and globally. In addition,
efforts to address these problems tend to be based on a limited awareness and
understanding of the nature and scope of the crisis. The problems are being poorly and
unrealistically defined. Even the efforts to address the problems as presently understood
are falling far short of the mark.
Indeed, efforts to address the problems have begun and are beginning much too late. The
problems are widely understood as primarily involving computer technology, information
systems, data processing systems, and communications technology. Resolving these
problems involves making needed diagnoses and taking corrective action. Those who tend
• to define the problem in this narrow way are greatly underestimating the nature and the
scope of the problem. There is an increasing chorus of others who see the problem as
being much broader. They see the potential impacts as being much farther reaching. They
see the societal infrastructure being significantly affected.
Why has so little attention has been given to problems relating to date sensitive embedded
systems?
In our highly specialized world, relatively few people even know about the existence of
date sensitive embedded systems. Of those who do, fewer still understand the complex
technology. Those who understand the technology best are software, firmware, and
hardware engineers and programmers who specialize in embedded systems.
Certainly, political leaders, policy makers, and others in roles of public responsibility
cannot be expected to readily understand the technical intricacies of software, firmware,
and hardware engineering and programming as these relate to date sensitive embedded
chips. In addition, they do not always have on their staffs, individuals who have such
technical expertise.
For all these reasons, very few public officials in any branch or at any level of government
have readily grasped the significance that date sensitive embedded systems have in the
• context of the Year 2000 technology crisis.
5
Persons in key policymaking roles in emergency management may also lack the kind of •
technical background that would allow them to recognize the nature of the threats posed
by the failure of date sensitive embedded systems. They may therefore fail to see the
potential for technological disasters and may consequently fail to undertake necessary
preparedness and mitigation measures. There in fact has been an apparent absence of
sensitivity of the emergency management community to Year 2000 technology problems.
Owing to the failure to understand the problems associated with the Year 2000, there has
been a failure on the part of the public and private sectors to assign or assume
responsibility for addressing the problems posed by Year 2000.
Some of the other reasons why embedded systems have not been adequately addressed are
as follows:
There are a relatively small number of persons who understand how embedded systems
failures can be forestalled.
It can be extraordinarily difficult to access the embedded systems that need to be assessed
in order to ascertain whether or not they are date sensitive and, if they are, whether or not
they are Year 2000 compliant.
It can be extraordinarily difficult to assess the internal logic of the embedded system. •
The scale of the problems are so great that there are not enough trained technicians who
are capable of working on them.
The actual testing of an embedded system can damage the system and cause a malfunction.
Because of the multitude of models and versions of embedded systems, it is not possible to
extrapolate from one system to another based on the testing of one. In a real sense, each
system has to treated as if it were unique, because it may well be.
Identical chips may act differently in different systems.
In cases where a replacement chip is required, it may not be possible to identify the vendor
or the vendor may be out of business. It may not be at feasible to manufacture a
replacement chip.
Malfunction of an embedded system may trigger other failures and the source of those
failures may not necessarily be detectable.
Even if efforts were to bring the nation close to 100% success in addressing computer
software and hardware problems, the threats posed by date sensitive embedded systems
could make those efforts for naught. Some date sensitive embedded systems are simply .
bound to fail. Even one accidental nuclear weapons launch or in place accident is one too
6
}
• many. Join that possibility with a nuclear power plant failure like Chernobyl, a chemical
plant disaster similar in magnitude to the disasters in Bhopal or Seveso, a release of toxic
emissions from a chemical or biological weapons facility, and perhaps, multiple incidents
of such events happening at once or in quick succession throughout the world and in
the middle of our winter months and there would be national as well as global impacts on
an unprecedented scale.
At the same time there could also be other problems whose duration would not necessarily
be known at the time. These problems could involve a lack of electricity, a working phone
system, radio, drinkable water, food, and fuel for heating and cars and all other forms of
transportation.
Technological disasters combined with infrastructure disruptions such as these could make
the difficulties of recovery formidable.
No one in the world will be immune from harm if the present level of understanding and if
the present level effort are not exponentially increased as rapidly as humanly possible. This
calls for leadership of a type that is rare. This is owing to the fact that one of the gravest
concerns in this crisis is the possible dissolution of the social fabric, which must be kept in
tact if we are to work through the crisis.
•
•
7
Dr. Paula Gordon is a Visiting Research Professor and Director of Special Projects in the •
George Washington University Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning.
In addition she serves as an independent consultant and contractor and as an Adjunct
Professor of Management Science in George Washington University's School of Business
and Public Management. Her adjunct teaching also includes the Northern Virginia Center
of the University of Virginia.
Her Ph.D. in Public Administration is from American University and her BA and MA
degrees are from the University of California at Berkeley. She also completed course work
in a second Ph.D. in Educational Policy Planning and Administration at the Graduate
School of Education, University of California at Berkeley. Her areas of emphasis in her
graduate programs were leadership theory, governmental management, organizational
theory and development, and political philosophy. Her dissertation, Public Administration
in the Public Interest, described a new paradigm of public administration that includes an
emphasis on the role that American government and public administration should play in
complex societal problem solving. Her thesis is that it is the obligation of those serving in
government to act in the public interest in accordance with the "mission statement" of the
nation, the Preamble to the Constitution. She further defines "acting in the public interest"
as acting in such a way as to maximize the values of life, health, and freedom and creating
a society in which the highest individual as well as societal aspirations can be fulfilled.
She has served in a variety of roles in the Federal government and in the private sector. •
These roles have ranged from founder and president of a non-profit organization to
consultant and contractor, staff officer, troubleshooter, program and policy analyst,
comparative scenario analyst, director of special projects, and university instructor. She
was a staff officer and troubleshooter at the Federal Energy Office during the energy crisis
of 1974 and played an instrumental role in bringing about an early resolution of the
Independent Truckers' Strike. While at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, she
developed issue and options papers in a wide range of issues areas relating to reorientation
of national civil preparedness and nuclear attack preparedness efforts. Subsequently she
has drafted works on emergency medical preparedness and on the societal aspects of
disaster recovery in the aftermath of declared disasters. At the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, she carried out public liaison and policy analyst roles in variety of
issue areas relating to the environment, environmental health, and agency Superfund
responsibilities.
Other affiliations have included the National Institute of Mental Health, the Research
Applied to National Needs Program of the National Science Foundation, and the U.S.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. She ran for Congress in the San
Francisco Bay Area receiving key support at the local, state, and national levels.
•
8
The Year 2000: Social Chaos or Social Transformation?
by
John L. Petersen,Margaret Wheatley,Myron Kellner-Rogers
Please copy and circulate widely
The Millennial sun will first rise over hu- Whether we experience this as chaos or Bo-
man civilization in the independent republic of cial transformation will be influenced by what we do
Kiribati, a group of some thirty low lying coral is- immediately.
lands in the Pacific Ocean that straddle the equator We are describing the year 2000 problem,
and the International Date Line, halfway between known as Y2K (K signifying 1000.) Nicknamed at
Hawaii and Australia. This long awaited sunrise first "The Millennial Bug" increasing sensitivity to
marks the dawn of the year 2000, and quite possi- the magnitude of the impending crisis has esca-
•bly, the onset of unheralded disruptions in life as we lated it to "The Millennial Bomb." The problem be-
know it in many parts of the globe. Kiribati's 81,000 gins as a simple technical error.
Micronesians may observe nothing different about Large mainframe computers more than ten
this dawn; they only received TV in 1989. years old were not programmed to handle a four
However, for those who live in a world that re- digit year. Sitting here now, on the threshold of the'
lies on satellites, air, rail and ground transportation, year 2000, it seems incomprehensible that computer
manufacturing plants, electricity, heat, telephones, or programmers and microchip designers didn't plan for
TV, when the calendar clicks from '99 to '00, we will it. But remember when a computer.only had 16 kilo-
experience a true millennial shift. As the sun moves bytes of RAM? To save storage space, most pro-
westward on January 1, 2000, as the date shifts si- grammers allocated only two digits to a year. 1993
lently within millions of computerized systems, we.will is '93' in data files, 1917 is '17.' These two-digit
begin to experience our computer-dependent world in dates exist on millions of files used as input
an entirely new way. We will finally see the extent of
the networked and interdependent processes we
have created. At the
stroke of midnight, the
new millennium heralds
the greatest challenge
to modern society we Y2K was caused by technology. It can only be
have yet to face as a
solved by new social relationships
planetary community.
to millions of applications. (The era in which today, it subtracts 55 from 98 and an- '
this code was written was described by one nounces that I'm 43....But what happens in
programming veteran as "the wild west.' the year 20007 The computer will subtract
.Programmers did whatever was required to 55 from 00 and will state that I am minus
get a product up and working; no one 55 years old. This error will affect any cal-
thought about standards:) culation that produces or uses time spans. .
The same thing happened in the . . If you want to sort by date (e.g.; 1965,
production of microchips as recently as 1905, 1966), the resulting sequence would
three years ago. Microprocessors and other be 1905, 1965, 1966. However, if you add
integrated circuits are often just sophisti- in a date record such as 2015, the com-
cated calculators that count and do math. puter,which reads only the last two digits of
They count many things: fractions of sec- the date, sees 05, 15, 65, 66 and sorts
onds, days, inches, pounds, degrees, lu- them incorrectly. These are just two types
mens, etc. Many chips that had a time of calculations that are going to produce
function designed into them were only garbage."
structured for this century. And when the The calculation problem explains
date goes from '99 to '00 both they and the why the computer system at Marks &
legacy software that has not been fixed will Spencer department store in London re-
think it is still the 20th century — not 2000, cently destroyed tons of food during the
but 1900. process of doing a long term forecast.
Peter de Jager, who has been ac- The computer read 2002 as 1902. In- •
tively studying the problem and its implica- stead of four more years of shelf life, the
tions since 1991, explains the computer computer calculated that this food was
math calculation: "I was born in 1955. If I ninety-six years old. It ordered it thrown
ask the computer to calculate how old I am out. A similar problem happened recently
What we know about Y2K
a a technological problem that now cannot be solved by technology
• the first-ever, non-negotiable deadline
• a systemic crisis that no one can solve alone
• a crisis that dissolves boundaries and hierarchies
• a unique opportunity to evoke contributions from individuals,
organizations and communities
• the greatest opportunity to simplify and redesign major systems
•
3 .
in the U.S. at the warehouse of a freeze Any next step depends on the preceding
• dried food manufacturer. step. This serial nature makes systems, -'
But Y2K is not about wasting good no matter their size,vulnerable to even the
food. Date calculations affect millions more slightest problem anywhere in the system.
systems than those that deal with invento- In 1990, ATT's long distance system ex-,
ries, interest rates, or insurance policies. perienced repeated failures. At that time,
Every major aspect of our modern infra- it took two million lines of computer code
structure has systems and equipment that to keep the system operational. But these
rely on such calculations to perform their millions of lines of code were brought
functions. We are dependent
on computerized systems that
contain date functions to effec-
tively manage defense, trans-
portation, power generation, We have created not only a co>nputer-
manufacturing, telecommunica- dependent society, but an interdependent
tions, finance, government, planet.
education, healthcare.
The list is longer, but
the picture is clear. We have
created a world whose efficient functioning down by just three lines of faulty code.
in all but the poorest and remotest areas is And these systems are lean; re-
dependent on computers. It doesn't matter dundancies are eliminated in the name of
whether you personally use a computer, or efficiency. This leanness also makes the
that most people around the world don't system highly vulnerable. In May of this
even have telephones. The world's eco- year, 90% of all pagers in the U.S.
nomic and political infrastructures rely on crashed for a day or longer because of
computers. And not isolated computers. the failure of one satellite. Late in 1997,
We have created dense networks of reli- the Internet could not deliver email to the
ante around the globe. We are networked appropriate addresses because their one
together for economic and political pur- and only central source sent corrupted
poses. Whatever happens in one part of information to their servers.
the network has an impact on other parts of Compounding the fragility of
the network. We have created not only a these systems is the fact that we can't see
computer-dependent society, but an inter- the extent of our interconnectedness. The
dependent planet. networks that make modern life possible
are masked by the technology. We only
We already have frequent expe- see the interdependencies when the rela-
riences with how fragile these systems tionships are disrupted -- when a problem
are, and how failure cascades through develops elsewhere and we notice that we
a networked system. While each of too are having problems.
these systems relies on millions of lines of When Asian markets failed last
code that detail the required processing, year, most U.S. businesses denied it
• they handle their routines in serial fashion, would have much of an impact on our
economy. Only recently have •
we felt the extent to which The networks mean that no one system can
Asian economic woes affect protect itself from Mfailures by just
us directly. Failure in one part attending-to Its own internal systems. It's all
of a system always exposes
the levels of interconnected- connected
ness that otherwise go unno-
ticed—we suddenly see how
our fates are linked together.
We see how much we are participating extent of our interdependence. We will
with one another, sustaining one another. see the ways in which we have woven the
modern world together through our tech-
Modem business is completely reli- nology.
ant on networks. Companies have ven-
dors, suppliers, customers, outsourcers
(all, of course, managed by computerized What, me worry?
data bases.) For Y2K, these highly net-
worked ways of doing business create a Until quite recently, it's been
terrifying scenario. The networks mean difficult to interest most people in the
that no one system can protect itself from Year 2000 problem. Those who are pub-
Y2K failures by just attending to its own licizing the problem (the Worldwide Web
internal systems. General Motors, which is the source of the most extensive infor- •
has been working with extraordinary focus mation on Y2K,) exclaim about the gen-
and diligence to bring their manufacturing era] lack of awareness, or even the delib-
plants up to Year 2000 compliance, erate blindness that greets them. In our
(based on their assessment that they were own investigation among many varieties of
facing catastrophe,) has 100,000 suppliers organizations and citizens, we've noted
worldwide. Bringing their internal systems two general categories of response. In the
into compliance seems nearly impossible, first category, people acknowledge the
but what then do they do with all those problem but view it as restricted to a small
vendors who supply parts? GM experi- number of businesses, or a limited num-
ences production stoppages whenever ber of consequences. People believe that
one key supplier goes on strike. What is Y2K affects only a few industries—
the potential number of delays and shut- primarily finance and insurance—
downs possible among 100,000 suppliers? seemingly because they deal with dates
The nature of systems and our on policies and accounts. Others note
history with them paints a chilling picture that their organization is affected by Y2K,
of the Year 2000. We do not know the but still view it as a well-circumscribed is-
extent of the failures, or how we will. be sue that is being addressed by their infor-
affected by them. But we do know with mation technology department. What's
great certainty that as computers around common to these comments is that people
the globe respond or fail when their calen- hold Y2K as a narrowly-focused, bounded
dars record 2000, we will see clearly the problem. They seem oblivious to the net- •
5
• works in which they participate, or to the More public figures are speaking out.
systems and interconnections of modem This Is critically important. With each cal-
life. endar tick of this time, alternatives dimin-
The second category of reactions ish and potential problems grow. We
reveals the great collective faith in tech- must develop strategies for preparing .
nology and science. People describe ourselves at all levels to deal with what-
Y2K as a technical problem, and then en- ever Y2K presents to us with the millen-
thusiastically state that human ingenuity nium dawn.
and genius always finds a way to solve
these type of problems. Ecologist David The Y2K problem, really
Orr has noted that one of the fundamen-
tal beliefs of our time is that technology We'd tike to describe in greater
can be trusted to solve any problem it detail the extent of Y2K. As a global net-
creates. If a software engineer'goes on work of interrelated consequences, it be-
TV claiming to have created a program gins at the center with the technical prob-
that can correct all systems, he is be- lem, legacy computer codes and embed-
lieved. After all, he's
just what we've been
expecting.
And then
there is the unique- We can't see the extent of our interconnectedness.
• ness of the Year The networks that make modern life possible are
2000 problem. At no created by technology, but they are also masked by
other time in history technology
have we been forced
to deal with a dead-
line that is absolutely ded microchips. (see Figure One) For
non-negotiable. In the past, we could al- the last thirty years thousands of pro-
ways hope for a last minute deal, or rely grammers have been writing billions of
on round-the-clock bargaining, or pray for lines of software code for the computers
an eleventh hour savior. We have never on which the world's economy and soci-
had to stare into the future knowing the ety now depend. Y2K commentator Ed
precise date when the crisis would mate- Meagher describes "old, undocumented
rialize. In a bizarre fashion, the inevitabil- code written in over 2500 dill=rent com-
ity of this confrontation seems to add to puter languages and executed on thou-
people's denial of it. They know the date sands of different hardware platforms be-
when the extent of the problem will sur- ing controlled by hundreds of different
face, and choose not to worry about it operating systems . . . (that generate] fur-
until then. ther complexity in the form of billions of
However, this denial is quickly dis- six character date fields stored in millions
sipating. Information on Y2K is expand- of databases that are used in calcula-
ing exponentially, matched by an escala- tions"
• tion in adjectives used to describe it. The Gartner Group, a computer-
industry research group, estimates that world's manufacturing and 'engineering
globally, 180 billion lines of software code base. They exist in traffic lights, elevators, '
will have to be screened. Peter de Jager water, gas, and electricity control systems.
notes that it is not unusual for a company They're in medical equipment and military
to,have more than 100,000,000 lines of and navigation systems. America's air
code—the IRS, for instance, has at least traffic control system is dependent upon
eighty million lines. them. Theyre located in the track beds of
The Social Security Administration railroad systems and in the satellites that
began working on its thirty million lines of circle the earth. Global telecommunica-
code in 1991. After five years of work, in lions are heavily dependent on them.
June, 1996, four hundred programmers Modem cars contain about two dozen mi-
had fixed only six million lines. The IRS croprocessors. The average American
has 88,000 programs on 80 mainframe comes in contact with seventy microproc-
computers to debug. By the end of last essors before noon every day.
year they had cleaned up 2,000 programs. Many of these chips aren't date
Capers Jones, sensitive, but a
head of Software SOCIAL great number
Productivity Re- REACTION are. And engi-
search, a firm / M1 veers looking at
that tracks pro- L40RGANrZAT(ONAL these chips don't
.�r� -SYSTEMS'.'.-„�f..t•�r
grammer produc- �+ know for sure
tivity, estimates w Legacy , . = which is which. •
So
that finding, fixinsoftware t To complicate
and testing all I things further,
Y2K-affected ':I Embedded.— .. not all chips be-
Mrcrochips have the same.
software would
require over r
Recent tests
700,000 person-
have shown that
years. x adS r,
two chips of the
Program-
mers have been r SOCIAh same model in-
brought out of -a>REACTION stalled in two
retirement and different com-
are receiving ex- puters but per-
traordinary wages and benefits to stick forming the same function are not equally
with this problem, but we are out of time. sensitive to the year-end problem. One
There aren't nearly enough programmers shuts down and the other doesn't.
nor hours remaining before January 1, It is impossible to locate all of these
2000. chips in the remaining months, nor can we
Also at the center of this technical replace all those that are identified. Those
time bomb are the embedded microproc- more than three years old are obsolete
essors. There are somewhat over a bil- and are probably not available in the mar-
lion of these hardware chips located in ketplace. The solution in those cases is to
systems worldwide. They sustain the •
7
• redesign and remanufacture that part of $3.9 billion. This figure was based only on -
the system — which often makes starting federal agency estimates; the OMB
over with new equipment the best option. warned that this estimate might be as
That is why some companies are junking much as 90% too low considering the in-
their computer systems and spending mil- creasing labor shortage and expected.
lions, even hundreds of millions, to replace growing remediation costs as January 1,
everything. It at least ensures that their 2000 looms nearer. And in June of this
internal systems work.
At issue is time, people,
money, and the nature of sys-
tems. These technical problems At no other time in history have we been
are exacerbated by government
and business leaders who haven't forced to deal with a deadline that is
yet.fully understood the potential absolutely non-negotiable.
significance of this issue for their
own companies, to say nothing of
the greater economic implica-
tions. Or maybe they still hope to
conceal it from us. year, it was announced that federal agen-
The U.S. leads all other devel- cies had already spent five billion dollars.
oped nations in addressing this issue, Of twenty-four agencies, fifteen reported
• minimally by six to nine months. Yet in a being behind schedule.
recent survey of American corporate chief These numbers don't consider
information officers, 70% of them ex- the loss of output caused by diverting
pressed the belief that even their compa- resources to forestall this crisis. in
nies would not be completely prepared for more and more businesses, expenditures
Y2K. Additionally, 50% of them acknowl- for R&D and modernization are being di-
edged that they would not fly during Janu- verted to Y2K budgets. Business Week in
ary 2000. If America is the global leader March of 1998 estimated that the Year
in Y2K efforts, these CIO comments are 2000 economic damage alone would be
indeed sobering. $119 billion. When potential lawsuits and
The economic impacts for the secondary effects are added to this -- peo-
global economy are enormous and un- ple suing over everything from stalled ele-
known. The Gartner Group projects that vators to malfunctioning nuclear power
the total cost of dealing with Y2K world- plants -- the cost easily could be over $1
wide will be somewhere between $300 bil- trillion.
lion to $600 billion -- and these are only But these problems and estimates
direct costs associated with trying to rem- don't begin to account for the potential im-
edy the problem. (These estimates keep pact of Y2K. The larger significance of
rising every quarter now.) The Office of this bomb becomes apparent when we
Management and Budget (OMB), in a re- consider the next circle of the global net-
cently released Quarterly Report, esti- work-- the organizational relationships that
• mated total government Y2K expense at technology makes possible.
handle on the problem' _. •
It's not only nuclear power plants
Who works with whom? that are the source of concern, although
problems there are scary enough. In one
Year 2000 test, notes Jared Wermiel,
The global economy is dependent leader of the Y2K effort at the Nuclear
upon computers both directly and indi- Regulatory Commission, the security com-
rectly. Whether it's your PC at home, the puter at a nuclear power plant failed by
workstation on a local area network, or the opening vital areas that are normally
GPS or mobile telephone that you carry, locked. Given the complexity and the need
all are integral parts of larger networks to test, "It wouldn't surprise me if certain
where computers are directly connected plants find that they are not Year 2000-
together. As we've learned, failure in a ready and have to shut down."
single component can crash the whole. Other electric utility analysts paint
system; that system could be an automo- a bleaker picture. Rick Cowles, who re-
bile, a train, an aircraft, an electric power ports on the electric utility industry, said at
{plant, a bank, a government agency, a the end of February: "Not one electric
stock exchange, an international tele- company (that he had talked to] has
phone system, the air traffic control sys- started a serious remediation effort on its
tem. If every possible date-sensitive hard- embedded controls. Not one. Yes, there's
ware and software bug hasn't been fixed been some testing going on, and a few
in a larger system, just one programming pilot projects here and there, but for the •
glitch or one isolated chip potentially can most part it is still business-as-usual, as if
bring down the whole thing. there were 97 months to go, not 97
While there isn't enough time or weeks"
technical people to solve the Y2K problem After attending one industry trade
before the end of next year, we
might hope that critical aspects
of our infrastructure are tackling
this problem with extreme dili-
gence. But this isn't true. There aren't enough programmers
America's electric power indus-
try is in danger of massive or hours remaining before the Year
fail-
ures, as described in Buslness� 2000. Time for purely technical so-
Week's February '98 cover lutions ran out.
story on Y2K. They report that
"electric utilities are only now
becoming aware that program-
mable controllers — which have replaced show, Cowie stated that, "Based on what I
mechanical relays in virtually all electricity- learned at DistribuTECH '98, 1 am con-
generating plants and control rooms — may vinced there is a 100% chance that a ma-
behave badly or even freeze up when 2000 jor portion of the domestic electrical infra-
arrives. Many utilities are just getting a structure will be lost as a result of the Year •
9
• 2000 computer and embedded systems cess to your account Information and.until y
problem. The industry Is fiddling whilst the they solve the problem and get the backup
infrastructure bums.- loaded on the new system, they are unable.
The Federal Aviation Administra- to process your payroll. "We don't have
tion is also very vulnerable but quite opU- any idea how long it will take; the presi-
mistic. "We're on one hand working to get dent says.
those computers Year 2000 compliant, but Then someone tells you that on
at the same time we're working on replac- the news there's a story that the whole
ing those computers; said Paul Takemoto, IRS is down and that they can neither ac-
a spokesman for the
FAA in early '98. At
the twenty Air Route
Traffic control cen- At issue is time,people, money, and the nature of
ters, there is a host systems. These problems are exacerbated by gov-
computer and a
backup system. All ernment and business leaders who either don't
forty of these ma- understand the potential significance of this issue
chines --mid-'80s vin-
tage IBM 3083 main- or who hope to conceal it from us
frames--are affected.
And then there are the
• satellites with embed-
ded chips, individual
systems in each airplane, and air traffic cept nor process tax information. Social
control systems around the globe. Luf- Security, Federal Housing, Welfare-
thansa already has announced it will not fly none of these agencies are capable of
its aircraft during the first days of 2000. issuing checks for the foreseeable future.
Major airlines aren't flying, waiting to see
Who else is affected? if there is still integrity in the air traffic
control system.
But the interdependency problem And manufacturing across the
extends far beyond single businesses, or country is screeching to a halt because of
even entire industries. Indirect relationships failures in their supply chain. (After years
extend like tentacles into many other net- of developing just in time (JIT) systems,
works, creating the potential for massive there is no inventory on hand—suppliers
disruptions of service. have been required to deliver parts as
Let's hope that your work organiza- needed. There is no slack in these sys-
tion spends a great deal of money and time tems to-tolerate even minor delivery prob-
to get its entire information system compli- lems.) Ground and rail transport have
ant. You know yours is going to function. been disrupted, and food shortages ap-
But on the second of January 2000 the pear within three to six days in major me-
phone calls start. It's your banker. "There's tropolises. Hospitals, dealing with the
• been a problem," he says. They've lost ac- failure of medical equipment, and the
loss of shipments of medicine, are'forced considered too remote a possibility and •
to deny non-essential treatment, and In therefore too expensive to plan for.
some cases are providing essential care The city of.New York began to un-
in pre-technical ways. derstand this last September. The gover-
nor of New York State banned all none's-
It's a rolling wave of Interdepend- sentiai IT projects to minimize the disrup- .
ent failures. And it reaches across the tion caused by the year 2000 bomb after
country and the world to touch people reading a detailed report that forecasts the
who, in most cases, didn't know they millennium will throw New York City into
were linked to others. Depending on chaos, with power supplies, schools, hos-
what systems fail, very few but strategi- pitals, transport, and the finance sector
tally placed failures would initiate a major likely to suffer severe disruption. Com-
economic cascade. Just problems with pounding the city's Y2K risks is the recent
power companies and phone systems departure of the head of its year 2000 pro-
alone would cause real havoc. (This ject to a job in the private sector.
spring, a problem in ATT rendered all
credit card machines useless for a day. But of course the anticipated
How much revenue was lost by busi- problems extend far beyond U.S.
nesses?) If only twenty percent of busi- shores. In February, the Bangkok Post
nesses and government agencies crash at reported that Phillip Dodd, a Unysis Y2K
the same time, major failures would en- expert, expects that upward of 70% of the
sue. businesses in Asia will fail outright or ex- •
In an interdependent system, solv- perience severe hardship because of Y2K.
ing most of the problem is no solution. As The Central Intelligence Agency supports
Ed Meagher describes:'it is not enough to this with their own analysis: "We're con-
solve simply "most of these problems." tamed about the potential disruption of
The integration of these systems requires power grids, telecommunications and
that we solve virtually all of them. Our abil- banking services, among other possible
ity as an economy and as a society to deal fallout, especially in countries already tom
with disruptions and breakdowns in our by political tensions."
critical systems is minuscule. Our worst A growing number of assessments
case scenarios have never envisioned of this kind have led Dr. Edward Yardeni,
multiple, parallel.systemic failures. the chief economist of Deutsche Morgan
Just in time inventory has led to just Grenfell, to keep raising the probability of a
in time provisioning. Costs have been deep global recession in 2000-2001 as the
squeezed out of all of our critical infra- result of Y2K. His present estimate of the
structure systems repeatedly over time potential for such a recession now hovers
based on the ubiquity and reliability of at about 70%, up from 40% at the end of
these integrated systems. The human fac- 1997•
tor, found costly, slow, and less reliable
has. been purged over time from our sys-
tems. Single, simple failures can be dealt
with; complex, multiple failures have been •
• ., 11
• michael has written: 'Those who want to
How might we respond? hush the problem('Don't talk about it, peo-
pie will panic' and "We don't know for
As individuals. nations, and as a sure') are having three effects. First, they
global society, do we have a choice as to are preventing a more rigorous lnvestiga-
how we might respond to Y2K, however lion of the extent of the problem. Second,
problems materialize? The question of they are slowing down the awareness of
the intensity of the problem as currently
outer alternative social responses lies at the understood and the urgency of the need
outer edd ges of the interlocking circles of
technology and system relationships. At for solutions. Third, they are making al-
present, potential societal reactions re- most certain a higher degree of ultimate
ceive almost no attention. But we finely panic, in anger, under conditions of
believe that it is the central most important shock."
place to focus public attention and individ- Haven't we yet learned the conse-
ual ingenuity.
Y2K is a technology-induced prob- quences of secrecy? When people are
lem, but it will not and cannot be solved by kept in the dark, or fed misleading infor-
mation, their confidence in leaders quickly
technology. It creates societal problems erodes. In the absence of real informa-
that can only be solved by humans. We tion, people fill the information vacuum
must begin t address potential social re- with rumors and fear. And whenever we
spouses. We o need to be engaged i this feel excluded, we have no choice but to
• discourse within our organizations,, our withdraw and focus on self-protective
communities, and across the traditional measures. As the veil of secrecy thick-
boundaries competition and national ens, the capacity for public discourse and
borders. Without such planning, we will shared participation in solution-finding dis-
of slide into technology. 2000 as hapless victims appears. People no longer believe any-
of our technology.
Even where there is some recog- thing or anybody—we become unavail-
nition of the potential disrup-
tions or chaos that Y2K might
create, there's a powerful dy-
namic of secrecy preventing
us from engaging in these Failure in a single component can crash the
conversations. Leaders don't whole system. In May 198, most U.S. pagers
want to panic their citizens.
Employees don't want to . .failed because a single satellite wobbled in
panic their bosses. Corpora- space
tions don't want to panic in-
vestors. Lawyers don't want
their clients to confess to any-
thing.
But as psychotherapist and infor- able, distrusting and focused only on self-
mation systems consultant Douglass Car-
• preservation. Our history with the prob-
lems created by secrecy has led CEO leagues. These crisis experiences are __ . •
Norman Augustine to advise leaders in memorable because the best of us be-
crisis to:'Tell the truth and tell it fast.' comes visible and available. We've ob-
Behaviors induced by secrecy are served this in America, and in Bangla-
not the only human responses available. desh, where the poorest of the poor re-
Time and again we observe a much more sponded to the needs of their most desti-
positive human response during times of tute neighbors rather than accepting relief
crisis. When an earthquake strikes, or a for themselves.
bomb goes off, or a flood or fire destroys a
community, people respond with astonish-
ing capacity and effectiveness. They use Who might we become?
any available materials to save and res-
cue, they perform acts of pure altruism,
they open their homes to one another, As we sit staring into the unknown
they finally learn who their neighbors are. dimensions of a global crisis whose tim-
We've interviewed many people who par- ing is non-negotiable, what responses
ticipated in the aftermath of a disaster, are available to us as a human commu-
and as they report
on their experi-
ences, it is clear that
their participation It's a rolling wave of interdependent failures.
changed their lives. •
They discovered And it reaches across the country and the world
new capacities in to touch people who didn't even know they were
themselves and in
their communities. connected
They exceeded all
expectations. They
were surrounded by
feats of caring and courage. They contrib-
uted to getting systems restored with a nity? An effective way to explore this
speed that defied all estimates. question is to develop potential scenarios
When chaos strikes, there's sim- of possible social behaviors. Scenario
ply no time for secrecy; leaders have no planning is an increasingly accepted
choice but to engage every willing soul. technique for identifying the spectrum of
And the field for improvisation is wide possible futures that are most important
open—no emergency preparedness drill to an organization or society. In selecting
ever prepares people for what they actu- among many possible futures, it is most
ally end up doing. Individual initiative and useful to look at those that account for
involvement are essential. Yet surpris- the greatest uncertainty and the greatest
ingly, in the midst of conditions of devasta- impact.
tion and fear, people report how good they For Y21K, David Isenberg, (a former
feel about themselves and their col- AT&T telecommunications expert, now at •
Isen.Com) has identified the two vari-
13
• ables which seem obvious —the range of left quadrant, "Human Spirit'posits a soci-
technical failures from isolated to multi- ety that, in the face of Gear adversity, calls
ple, and the potential social responses, on each of us to collaborate in solving the
from chaos to coherence. Both variables problems of breakdown.
are critical and uncertain and are arrayed Since essentially we-are out of
as crossing axis. When displayed in this both time and resources for preventing
way, four different general futures widespread Y2K failures, the only plausi-
emerge. In the upper left quadrant, if ble future scenarios worth contemplating
technical failures are isolated and society are those in the lower half of the matrix.
doesn't respond to those, nothing of sig- The major question before us is how will
nificance will happen. Isenberg labels society respond to what is almost certain
this the "Official Future" because it re- to be widespread and cascading techno-
flects present behavior on the part of logical failures?
leaders and organizations. . This diagram shows a possible
The upper right quadrant describes a natural evolution of the problem. Early,
time where technical failures are still iso- perhaps even in '98, the press could begin
lated, but the public responds to these with a panic long before it was clear how seri-
panic, perhaps fanned by the media or by ous the problem was or how society would
stonewalling leaders. Termed "A Whiff of react to it. This might lead to an interim
Smoke," the situation is
analogous to the panic
• caused in a theater by lsdtw
someone who smells F•�•
smoke and spreads an
alarm, even though it's official A Whiff of
then discovered that there Future Smoke
is no fire. This world could g
m
evolve from a press report 3
that fans the flames of Social Sowl Nespo COMICS
social
panic over what starts as a CWrara &.kd.
minor credit card glitch (for Mllenniai
example), and then, fueled Human Spirit Apocalypse
by rumors, turns into a
major social problem with
runs on banks. etc.
The lower quad-
rants describe far more o.p.m•M
dan
negative scenarios. F•nu•
"Millennial Apocalypse'
presumes large-scale
technical failure coupled with social break- scenario where a serious technical prob-
down as the organizational, political and lem turned into a major social problem
• economic systems come apart. The lower . from lack of adequate positive social re-
sponse. In this "Small Theatre Fire" fu- by new social relationships. All of us need
ture, people would overreact and trample to become very wise and very engaged •
themselves trying to get to the exits from a very fast and develop entirely new proc- .
small fire that could have been easily ex- esses for working together. Systems is-
tinguished. sues cannot be resolved by hiding behind
traditional boundaries or by clinging to com-
If the technical
situation is bad, a some-
what more ominous WdaW
situation could evolve PoOi
where government, ex- Awhiffof
erting no clear positive Ada Snake
leadership and seeing r moe
no alternative to chaos,
cracks down so as not
s e 1�:�Socw
s�
to lose control. (The coh, fMilenrial
eel y
-most common historical
response globally to so-
cial chaos has been for
governments to inter- co rmmllariary vene in non-democratic, F#irren Srit T Faw=
often brutal fashion.) •
"Techno-fascism" is a o.a.wi
plausible scenario. Gov- ram"
ernments and large cor-
porations would inter-
vene to try to contain the damage rather petitive strategies. Systems require col-
than build for the future. This dictatorial laboration and the dissolution of existing
approach would be accompanied by se- boundaries. Our only hope for healthy re-
crecy about the real extent of the problem sponses to Y2K-induced failures is to par-
and would be fueled by the cries of dis- ticipate together in new collaborative rate-
tress from a society that has realized its tionships.
major systems are about to fail and that it At present, individuals and organi-
is too late to do anything about it. zations are being encouraged to protect
themselves, to focus on solving "their"
problem. In a system's world, this is in-
Collaboration is our only choice sane. The problems are not isolated,
therefore no isolated responses will work.
Obviously, the only scenario worth The longer we pursue strategies for individ-
working towards is the "Human Spirit." ual survival, the less time we have to create
any viable, systemic solutions. None of the
This requires that understand Y2K not boundaries we've created across indus-
as atechnical problem, but as a systemic,
worldwide event that can only be resolved tries, organizations, communities, or nation •
15
• states give us any protec-
tion in the face of Y2K.
We must stop the mes-
sages of fragmentation
now and focus resources
and leadership on figuring If we are to go through this crisis together
out how to engage every- rather than bunkered down: and focused only
one, at all levels, in all
systems. on individual survival, leaders in ust begin right
As threatening now to convene us.
as Y2K is, it also gives us
the unparalleled opportu-
nity to figure out new and
simplified ways of working
together. GM's chief information officer, gether so well.
Ralph Szygenda, has said that Y2K is the - But there's more to this story. One
cruelest trick ever played on us by technol- significant player had been excluded from
ogy, but that it also represents a great op- the preparedness drill, and that was the FBI.
portunity for change. It demands that we No one thought they'd ever be involved in a
let go of traditional boundaries and roles in Federal matter. To this day, people in Okla-
the pursuit of new, streamlined systems, homa City speak resentfully of the manner in
• ones that are less complex than the entan- which the FBI came in, pushed them aside,
gled ones that have evolved over the past and offered no explanations for their behav-
thirty years. ior. In the absence of trusting relationships,
There's an interesting lesson here some form of techno-fascism is the only re-
about involvement that comes from the course. Elizabeth Dole, as president of the
Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Just a American Red Cross commented: "The
few weeks prior the bombing, agencies midst of a disaster is the poorest possible
from all over the city conducted an emer- time to establish new relationships and to
gency preparedness drill as part of normal introduce ourselves to new organizations.
civil defense practice. They did not pre- When you have taken the time to build rap-
pare themselves for a bomb blast, but port, then you can make a call at 2 a.m.,
they did work together on other disaster when the river's rising and expect to launch
scenarios. The most significant accom- a well-planned, smoothly conducted re-
plishment of the drill was to create an in- sponse."
visible infrastructure of trusting relation- The scenario of communities and or-
ships. When the bomb went off, that infra- ganizations working together in new ways de-
structure displayed itself as an essential mands a very different and immediate re-
resource--people could work together eas- sponse not only from leaders but from each
ily, even in the face of horror. Many lives of us. We'd like to describe a number of ac-
were saved and systems were restored at tions that need to begin immediately.
an unprecedented rate because people
• from all over the community worked to-
What leaders must do unique qualities. From these conversations •
and plans, we will learn to know one an-
We urge leaders to give up trying to other and to know what we value. In sud-
carry this burden alone, or trying to reestab- den crises, people instantly share a sense
of meaning and purpose. For Y2K, 'we
lish a world that is irretrievably broken. We
have at least a little lead time to develop a
need leaders to be catalysts for the emer-
cohesive sense of what might happen and
gence of a new world. They cannot lead us
through this in traditional ways. No leader or how we hope to respond.
senior team can determine what needs to be Secrecy must f replaced by full
o
done. No single group can assess the corn- and frequent disclosure of information. The
p only way to prevent driving people into iso-
lexity of these systems and where the con-
sequences of failure might be felt. The un- fated and self-preserving behaviors is to en-
sequences us with difficult, even fearsome info r-
known but complex implications of Y2K de- motion, and then to insist that we work to-
mand that leaders support unparalleled levels
of participation—more broad-based and in- gether.
clusive than ever imagined. If we are to go No leader anywhere can ignore
through this crisis together these needs or delay their implementation.
rather than bunkered down
and focused only on individ-
ual security, leaders must
begin right now to convene We urge leaders to give up trying to carry this
us. The first work of leaders burden: alone. The complex implications of •
then, is to create the re-
sources for groups to come Y2K demand that leaders support unparalleled
together in conversations levels of participation—more broad-based and
that will reveal the intercon- inclusive than ever imagine!.
nections. Boundaries need
to dissolve. Hierarchies are
irrelevant. Courageous
leaders will understand that
they must surrender the illusion of control and
seek solutions from the great networks and What communities must do
communities within their domain. They must
move past the dynamics of competition and Communities need, to assess
support us in developing society-wide solu- where they are most vulnerable and de-
tions. velop contingency plans. Such assess-
ment and planning needs to occur not just
out those we have excluded and insi st that within individual locales, but also in geo-
they be invited in to all deliberations. Lead- graphic regions. These activities can b-
ens can provide the time and resources for initiated by existing community networks,
people to assess what is critical for the or- for example, civic organizations such as
ganization or community to sustain—its Lions m Rotary, Council of Churches,
mission, its functions, its relationships, its •
17
Chamber of Commerce, the United Way. tion has something important to contribute to
But new and expansive alliances are re- this work.Assessment and contingency plans
quired, so planning activities need quickly need to focus on:
to extend beyond traditional borders. We 0 how the organization will perform es-
envision residents of all ages and experi- sential tasks in the absence of pres-
ence coming together to do these audits ent systems
and planning. Within each community and 0 how the organization will respond to
region, assessments and contingency failures or slowdowns in information _
plans need to be in place for disruptions or and supplies
loss of service for: 0 what simplified systems can be de-
0 all utilities— electricity, water, gas, veloped now to replace existing ones
phones 0 relationships with suppliers, custom-
0 food supplies ers, clients, communities—how we
0 public safety will work together
0 healthcare 0 developing systems to ensure open
0 government payments to individu- - and full access to information
als and organizations
0 residents most at risk, e.g. the eld- The trust and loyalty developed
erly, those requiring medications through these strategic conversations and
joint planning will pay enormous dividends
What organizations must do later on, even if projected breakdowns
• don't materialize. Corporate and commu-
nity experience with scenario planning has
Organizations need to move Y2K from taught a important principle: We don't
the domain of technology experts into the en- need to be able to predict the future in or-
der organization. Everyone in the organiza- der to be well-prepared for it. In develop-
What we know about people's response to crisis
• shared purpose and meaning bring people together
• people display amazing levels of creativity and resourcefulness
• people want to help others -individual agendas fade immediately
• people learn instantly and respond at lightning speed
• the more information people get, the smarter their responses
• leadership behaviors (trot roles) appear everywhere, as needed
i
ing scenarios, information Is sought from
all over. People think together about its
implications and thus become smarter as The crisis is now
individuals and as teams. Whatever fu-
ture then materializes is dealt with by pea-
pi There is no time left to waste. Every
e who more intelligent and who know week decreases our options. At the mid-May
how to work well together. meeting of leaders from the G8, a commu- .
And such planning needs to occur
a niqu8 was issued that expressed their shared
t the level of entire industries. Strained
sensitivity to the "vast implications" of Y2K,
relationships engendered by competitive particularly in "defense, transport, telecom-
pressures need to be put aside so that munications, financial services, energy, and
people can collaboratively search for ways
environmental sectors," and the interdepend-
to sustain the very fabric of their industry. encies among these sectors. (Strangely,
How will power grids be maintained na- their list excludes from concern government
tionally? Or national systems of food systems, manufacturing and distribution sys-
transport? How will supply chains for tems.)They vowed to"take further urgent ac-
manufacturing in any industry be sus- tion" and to work with one another, and rele-
tained? vant organizations and agencies. But no
budget was established, and no specific ac-
What you can do tivities were announced. Such behavior—
the issuing of a communique, the promises of •
We urge you to get involved in collaboration and further investigation—are
Y2K, wherever you are, and in whatever all too common in our late 201° century politi-
organizations you participate. We can't cal landscape.
leave this issue to others to solve for us, But the earth continues to circle the
nor can we wait for anyone else to assert sun, and the calendar relentlessly pro-
leadership. You can begin to ask ques- gresses toward the Year 2000. If we cannot
tions; you can begin to convene groups of immediately change from rhetoric to action,
interested friends and colleagues; you can from politics to participation, if we do not im-
engage local and business leaders; you mediately turn to one another and work to-
can educate yourself and others (start with gether for the common good, we will stand
www.Year2000.com for up-to-date infor- fearfully in that new dawn and suffer conse-
mation and resources.) This is our prob- quences that might well have been avoided
lam. And as an African proverb'reminds if we had learned to stand together now.
us, if you think you're too small to make a
difference, try going to bed with a mos-
quito in the room. Copyright 1998 John L. Petersen,Margaret
Wheatley,Myron Kellner-Rogers.
Please copy and distribute freely.
We don't need to be able to predict the future in order to be well-prepared for it.
I. Summary of Oversight Findings and Recommendations
A. Introduction
The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight (the "committee") has primary legislative and oversight
jurisdiction with respect to the "overall economy, efficiency and management of Government operations and
activities, including Federal procurement." In addition:
[T]he Committee on Government Reform and Oversight may at any time conduct
investigations of any matter without regard to the provisions . . . conferring jurisdiction over
such matter upon another standing committee. The committee's findings and
recommendations in any such investigation shall be made available to the other standing
committee or committees having jurisdiction over the matter involved.
Pursuant to this authority, the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology(the
"subcommittee") convened an oversight hearing on April 16, 1996 to examine whether computers throughout the
Federal Government, the United States, and the world would be able to handle the transition from the year 1999 to
the year 2000. The subcommittee has continued this investigation throughout the 105 th Congress.
The potential problem, known as the Year 2000 problem or Y2K, is simple: In the 1960s, when large computers had
very little storage space, programmers saved computer memory by using two digits instead of four digits to represent
calendar year—for example, 1966 became "66." This method functions well until computers confront the year
0, which will appear as "00." Unless corrected, computers will not know if"00" means the year 1900 or the year
2000. If computers and microchips around the globe are unable to recognize this date, they could generate corrupted
data, suffer malfunction, or even shut down entirely.
For Federal computers, this could affect everything from Social Security and Veterans' benefit payments to missile
maintenance systems, from the Federal Aviation Administration to the Internal Revenue Service. There.are at least
7,000 mission critical computer systems (those systems essential to the performance of important governmental
functions) in the Executive branch of the Federal Government.
It is now clear that a large number of Federal computer systems simply will not be prepared for January 1, 2000. At
the same time, the utilities industry, the financial services industry, the telecommunications industry, vital modes of
transportation, and other indispensable industrial sectors are all at risk.
The problem lies not just with software in mainframe computer systems, but with embedded microchips as well.
These chips serve as the brains of devices from elevators to security systems to automated manufacturing equipment.
There may be as many as 25 billion microchips in use around the world. Seven billion microchips were shipped
across the globe in 1997. It is estimated that between two and five percent of all microchips have the date problem.
This sounds like a tiny fraction, but it is a tiny fraction of a huge number. Furthermore, embedded chips-by definition
are hard to find and hard to test for Year 2000 compliance.
The Year 2000 problem could result in a stunning array of technological failures. Air traffic could be delayed or even
grounded; telephone service could be interrupted; breakdowns in the production and distribution of electricity could
Wg widespread power failures; automatic teller machines might malfunction; traffic lights could stop working;
eclocks at factories might malfunction. Government payments, including checks from the Internal Revenue
Service, the Treasury, and the Veterans Benefits Administration, could be interrupted; military technology, including
the Global Positioning Satellite System, could malfunction. Closer to home, devices with a timing function, including
microwave ovens, personal computers, video cassette recorders, and climate control systems could all falter or even
shut down entirely.
Some early failures have already occurred. According to one survey, more than 40 percent of companies in the
United States already have encountered Year 2000-related system failures. In 1995, for example, computers at the
Unum Life Insurance Company automatically deleted 700 records from a database that tracks the licensing status of
brokers when a computer program interpreted some of the "00" expiration dates as 1900. More dramatically, when
Phillips Petroleum ran a Year 2000 test on an oil rig in the North Sea, a safety system that detects emissions of
deadly hydrogen sulfide gas stopped working. When the Chrysler Corporation turned clocks forward at one of its
assembly plants in 1997 to simulate the date change, the security system failed, preventing people from leaving the
building. In a similar exercise by NORAD personnel in 1993, the result was total system blackout.
Failures such as these may be the tip of the iceberg. Solving the problem, however, is an expensive process. In 1996,
the Gartner Group estimated that the worldwide cost of Year 2000 repairs would reach $600 billion, with half of that
going to repairs in the United States, and $30 billion to the Federal Government. The Office of Management and
Budget has insisted the Federal cost would be much lower, but has repeatedly raised its own estimate. Beginning
with $2.3 billion in 1997, OMB's estimate swelled to $5.4 billion as of August 15, 1998 (although the 24 largest
departments and agencies were asking for $6.3 billion at that time). Subcommittee Chairman Stephen Horn has long
argued that the Executive branch should be prepared for costs to exceed $10 billion. In the private sector, General
Motors expects to spend $565 million, Citicorp estimates its costs at $600 million, and MCI at $400 million.
The Federal Government must be sure that the most important systems at the key Federal agencies are revamped
before January 1, 2000. Similar action needs to be taken by nations around the globe. By failing to address the Year
2000 problem, the United States could suffer severe disruptions in the delivery of essential governmental and private
industry services. It has been suggested that this could even precipitate an economic recession.
B. Overview of Investigation
The subcommittee has worked to build an understanding and awareness of the Year 2000 problem and the remediaO
actions that must be taken by organizations everywhere. The subcommittee has provided oversight of government
and industry efforts by conducting a series of hearings to explore the problem. The subcommittee has also issued
report cards grading the progress (or lack of progress) Federal agencies are making toward Year 2000 compliance.
One important objective has been to inspire action by the President. As Chief Executive, the President must play an
active leadership role in moving the Nation forward on the Year 2000 problem. In July 1997, the chairman and
ranking member of the subcommittee, together with the chairwoman and ranking member of the Technology
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, formally asked the President to use the "bully pulpit," as
Theodore Roosevelt called it, to explain the problem to the American people. They also recommended that he
appoint a senior Administration official as coordinator for the national Year 2000 effort.
The President has still not implemented the first recommendation: to explain the Year 2000 problem to the American
people. In July 1998, he addressed some of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. That is preaching to
the choir. He has been urged to speak in a "fireside chat" environment, similar to the approach of President Franklin
D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. The appointment of a full-time coordinator to pull together the pieces of the
Administration's effort took place in February 1998, when he designated John Koskinen, a retired Office of
Management and Budget official, as Assistant to the President. Mr. Koskinen did not take office until March 1998.
Despite this belated step in the right direction, many Federal agencies are simply not moving quickly enough to be
Year 2000 compliant by January 1, 2000. As noted above, the subcommittee has prodded Executive branch agencies
to action by grading them on their Year 2000 efforts. The grades are based on an analysis of the quarterly reports •
from the agencies themselves as well as follow-up investigative work by the staff of the subcommittee and the
General Accounting Office, the fiscal and program auditors for the Legislative branch. Each report card has revealed
a disturbing lack of progress within the Executive branch. Overall, the Administration has received a grade of"F"
and "D" in the last two quarters.
• CHAIRMAN SEN. ROBERT BENNETT, Special Committee on the Y2K Technology Problem,
October 7, 1998
" The frustration that Vice Chairman Dodd and I share along with the other members of this
Special Committee, is that many of those who are dragging their feet on the Y2K issue defend
their lack of activity on the perception that we lack adequate information to justify serious
action. Perhaps six months ago we were flying blindly into the year 2000, but thanks to the
many publicly-spirited Americans who have testified before this Committee, patterns are
emerging. We do not need absolute, 100 percent certain evidence for us to recognize that we
have a serious Y2K problem any more than a citizen of Key West or Mobile needed the National
Weather Service to tell them that they were in the middle of a hurricane. The Weather Service
did, however, provide an absolutely invaluable function by warning of the oncoming danger. Like
the Weather Service, this Committee cannot provide an absolute prediction of the future. We
cannot know what will happen on January 1, 2000. We can, however, provide a real and useful
warning for individuals and industries, and that, after all, is one of the most important aspects
of our work. "
VICE CHAIRMAN SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD:
"Just one of many areas that deeply concerns me is the small business sector. Many small
businesses are either unaware or unconcerned about the Y2K problem. Yet they are crucial to
the welfare of the American economy. They employ nearly 18 million American workers. They
• provide 51% of the private sector output. Despite the label "small business," they are by
no means small in their importance. Whether they realize their role in our Y2K challenge is,
unfortunately, another matter. Small businesses seem to think that they can hide from the Y2K
problem. In a recent Wells Fargo Bank survey of small business Y2K preparedness, 81% of
small businesses surveyed knew of the problem, but no more than 25% had acted on that
information. This is unacceptable.
" I would like to borrow one of Senator Bennett's metaphors which compares this committee to
the National Weather Service. We have a worldwide Y2K storm brewing which, unlike the
tropical storms and other disasters that the National Weather Service tracks, is at least
partially controllable. We still have more than a year to identify the most critical systems
and fix them. Unfortunately, we still lack the kind of international storm warning and response
system that this issue requires. The Senate as well as the American public have a keen interest
in monitoring the response levels that public and private organizations have displayed with
respect to the Y2K problem. Most are aware of their civic duties, and have volunteered to tell
the Y2K story, recognizing that their experiences will be useful to others. But there are other
companies and industries that willfully and knowingly chose not to cooperate with our efforts.
[Emphasis added.] In many cases, these are companies whose products are essential for the day-
to-day existence of the average American. For example, many major representatives of the food
industry have decided that it is not in their best interest to tell the public the Y2K status of
their industry. Their industry associations were equally unsupportive. [emphasis added. Ed.]....
"The pharmaceutical industry includes a large international component. For example, diabetics
can live long and healthy lives with the help of regular doses of insulin, a substance that is
mainly produced in Denmark. If Denmark's insulin production is affected by the Y2K bug or any
other disaster, the thousands of Americans that depend on this drug to control their diabetes will
find themselves in grave danger. Insulin is just one product that embodies the interdependent •
nature of the world in terms of business and economics, as well as health and social welfare. We
hope the Danes, and the rest of the international community are as concerned about Y2K as we
are. Steps must be taken to insure that the factories that produce insulin, and other such life-
saving drugs can function properly after January 1, 2000.
"The spectrum of American business centers around major producers, much as it has since the
invention of commerce. If business history teaches us anything, its is the symbiotic
relationship between large and small businesses. Large corporations need small companies to
tailor the delivery of goods and services to meet consumer needs."
SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYIHAN:
"Until now, however, there has been little factual basis on which doomsayers
and apocalyptic fear mongers could spread their gospel After studying the
potential impact of Y2K on the telecommunications industry, health care
economy, and other vital sectors of our lives. I would like to warn that we have
cause for fear. For the failure to address the millennium bug could be
catastrophic." [Emphasis added.]
SENATOR BENNETT:
"We must be Paul Revere. We must tell everyone that Y2K is coming. But we
must not be Chicken Little and tell them that the sky is falling. •
"We must get the attention of top management and recognize that this is
not an IT problem that will be solved by the propeller heads and the computer
geeks. This is a management challenge that must be addressed by the highest CEO
immediately. We must coldly, calculatingly divide up the next 18 months to
determine what we can do, what we can't do, do what we can, and then provide
for contingency plans for that which we cannot. We must recognize that this
problem is coming and that it must be dealt with coldly, intelligently, and
efficiently. Don't panic, but don't spend a lot of time sleeping either."
Source: http✓/home.swbell.net/adheath/special.htm
i
Y2K NEWS A CREDIBLE INFORMATION SOURCES
• Rogue Valley Y2k Task Force
hftp://www.rv-y2k.org
FEMA Urges Local Communities, Emergency Services Sector & Public to Get Ready
Now for Y2K FEMA Coverage of Y2K Issues
Washington, January 6, 1999 -- Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials are
urging the emergency management, fire and emergency services communities and the public to
get ready now for Y2K.
"http://www.fema.gov/nwz99/99001.htm"
Times January 9. 1999
Koskinen Dismisses Doomsday Predictions, But Preparing Federal & State
Emergency Centers
The Clinton administration plans to enlist federal and state emergency command centers in the
fight against the Year 2000 computer "bug," a presidential adviser said yesterday. John A.
Koskinen, chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, said the council would
pull together existing emergency response centers run by the Defense and State departments,
intelligence agencies and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to address
problems that might be faced by citizens, communities and states on Jan. 1, 2000.
hftp://www.wash ington post.com/wp-srv/W Plate/1999-01/08/1781-010899-idx.html
Commentary
http://www.cbn.org/y2k/insights.asp?file=990109.htm
• Subject: Y2K Business Failures Increase
Times PRESS RELEASE:
Many Major Firms Have Already Experienced Year 2000-Related Computer Failures Companies
Are Refining Their Year 2000 Testing Processes, Survey Shows Nearly All Expect More Errors In
1999 New York, NY - December 29, 1998
With one year remaining until the new millennium, a new survey shows that a majority of
America's largest corporations have already experienced Year 2000-related failures. Nearly all of
the companies surveyed - 98 percent -- expect more such failures in 1999.
http://www.usa.capgemini.com/news/press/prl22998.html
PR Newswire
January 5, 1999
PORTLAND, Ore., Jan. 5 /PRNewswire/ — The Bonneville Power Administrati= On is confident it
will be ready for the year 2000. The federal agency is on target for completing Year 2000 (Y2K)
testing on its systems early this year These tests show that the backbone of the Pacific Northwest's
electrical system -- BPA's 15,000 circuit miles of high-voltage transmission line -- will continue to
operate reliably and safely through the year 2000 and beyond.
BPA's testing and remediation program is thorough and will be completed by March 31, 1999,
months before the year 2000 and other key dates. BPA's technical staff began working on Y2K in
1995. The program involves identifying and testing automated systems; replacing, upgrading or
discontinuing those systems with Y2K problems; and contingency planning. "We are taking Y2K
very seriously," BPA's Chief Information Officer Joe O'Rourke said. "Besides testing our own systems,
we are working with our business partners, customers and generation suppliers to provide reliable
service on the Pacific Northwest's largest high-voltage transmission system." O'Rourke reported
• that in the highly unlikely event that automated systems don't work, the agency can operate them
manually. "We're confident that we are anticipating the full range of likely outcomes and making
timely and thorough preparations for them," O'Rouke said.
i
Y2K Alert - 1/13/1999 - Special power issue
SPECIAL POWER ISSUE
Welcome to our special power issue. The power infrastructure lies at the base of modern
civilization. Without power, talking about the compliance of anything else is pointless.
In late 1998, the NERC (North American Electric Reliability Council) stated they didn't know
whether the lights would stay on. The question of electric utility compliance was largely
unanswered. This week, their position changed suddenly with a report released to the Dept of
Energy that is now being widely reported as a claim that no power problems will occur, period. This
conclusion is based on nothing more than the fact that electric utilities are "making progress" on
their compliance efforts. Not a single electric utility has yet made an unambiguous claim of full
Y2K compliance, and in fact, most nuclear power plants are still in the assessment stage, which is
the first 1% - 7% of the job, depending on the situation. That means they have 93% of the job
remaining... and here it is already 1999.
Friday, January 15, 1999
Bennett Urges President To Make Y2K a Priority
BY JOHN HEILPRIN
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
WASHINGTON — Utah Republican Sen. Bob Bennett and three other congressional Republicans
on Thursday implored President Clinton to make Y2K computer compliance a "national priority" in
the 2000 budget proposal. . . Bennett's committee also issued a statement Thursday to accompany
the letter out of concern "that rosy public predictions may be masking serious Y2K compliance
problems in the federal government."
http://www.sltrib.com/01 151999/n ation_w/75011.htm
JOHN KOSKINEN, Chairman, President Clinton's Council on the Year •
2000 Conversion, May 18, 1998,
"The bottom line is we have to inoculate the public against the perception that all systems will
work. They won't. We just hope the right ones will."
SENATOR ROBERT BENNETT, (R-UT), Chairman, Senate Special Committee on the Year
2000 Technology Problem, June 1998, "It is entirely possible that every organization in America
could get its own computers fixed ... and still have major problems. When people say to me, is the
world going to come to an end, I say I don't know. I don't know whether this will be a bump in the
road ... or whether this will in fact trigger a major worldwide recession with absolutely devastating
economic consequences in some parts of the world." . . .
SHERRY BURNS, Central Intelligence Agency, May 5, 1998,
"We're concerned about the potential disruption of power grids, telecommunications and banking
services...especially in countries already torn by political tensions."
MICHEHL GENT, President, North American Electric Reliability Council
June 12, 1998,
"Year 2000 poses the threat that common mode failures...or the coincident loss of multiple
facilities could result in stressing the electric system to the point of a cascading outage over a large
area..."
•
2
FEDERAL COMPUTER WEEK
JANUARY 14, 1999exercises
BY BOB BREWIN (antenna @fcw.com)
The Defense Department plans to conduct a series of exercises over the next several months to
determine how it can best help other government agencies manage any breakdown in the power
grid and other critical systems due to Year 2000-related computer problems.
. Hamre described DOD's strategy as a shift from contingency planning -- in
case its own systems fail -- to what he called "consequence support planning."
http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/0111/web-y2khelp-1-14-99.html
www.itpolicy.gsa.gov/mks/yr2000/y2kconf/paper64.htm
by Paula D. Gordon, Ph.D.
copyright Paula D. Gordon December 1998
"Public officials have a responsibility to address problems that pose a threat to society. It is they
who have the bully pulpit. It is they who should have the best interest of the public at heart. It is
they who can most readily mobilize, redirect, and deploy resources to address a set of problems
with the magnitude and complexity of Y2K. What is preventing public officials from taking the
necessary action? What actions should they be taking to address Y2K? Why are their current
actions falling far short? This White Paper seeks to address these questions.
N oll
Poll: Many foresee YK2 cash crunch, few fear doomsday.
January 10, 1999
(CNN) -- Much of the U.S. public is concerned about possible problems from the so-
called "Y2K bug," but few people plan to stockpile food, avoid air travel or arm themselves for the
end of the year, according to the results of a recent CNN/Time poll. However, nearly half of those
polled said they would withdraw extra cash from their bank accounts. And of the 1,067 adults
surveyed, 53 percent said they believed the banking system was likely to be disrupted as computer
systems attempt to roll over from 1999 to the year 2000.
Only 38 percent said they believed riots or other social unrest will occur when the year 2000
begins, and only 9 percent said the world will end. But 13 percent said they plan to arm themselves
with a gun for the calendar change, 23 percent said they will stockpile fuel and 33 percent said
they will stockpile food.
Despite worldwide hype for spectacular year 2000 bashes, only 32 percent of the respondents said
they had made special plans for the coming New Year's Eve.
Following are the complete results of the January 7 poll, which has a
sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points:
Are you concerned about the Y2K bug?
Yes 59%
No 39%
What is the likelihood of the following occurrences as we enter the year
2000?
Disruptions in the banking system
Likely 53%
Not Likely 44%
Electronic equipment failures
Likely 59%
3
Not Likely 47%
Riots or social unrest
J� Likely 38%
Not Likely 59%
The end of the world
Likely 9%
Not Likely 86%
To avoid year 2000 problems, will you do the following? .
Yes No
Stockpile food 33% 65%
Avoid air travel 26% 71%
Arm yourself 13% 85%
Withdraw more cash 47% 50%
Do you have special plans for December 31,1999?
Yes 32%
No 63%
margin of error: plus or minus 3 percentage points
The=Institution of Electrical Engineers
"Thee Millennium Problem in Embedded Systems"
http://www.iee.org.uk/2000risk/ .
Y'
4