Here's my lame Gary North impersonation.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I posted the following on my local rag's on-line forum. If you would like to reply at that forum, the URL is:

http://www.jsonline.com/bin/ubb/Forum36/HTML/000003.html

The following story appeared in the Oct. 20 edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel business section (page 10D). Sorry, I can't find the story on-line. My comments are in brackets. Headline: Most firms planning for year 2000 bug

[That sounds like good news. Let's bury it on the back page of the business section, where almost noone will read it]

Sub-headline: Some state firms have spent more than $1 million on problem, survey shows

[Wow. Sounds like a lot of money. Many companies are spending hundreds of millions.]

Main story:

[No by-line? Wonder why?]

Wisconsin companies are taking steps to avoid a meltdown from computer problems related to the year 2000, a survey by the state's largest business group said.

[If meltdown is the end result, I should hope companies are "taking steps".]

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce said that 96% of the 476 companies responding to a survey say they have taken steps to resolve the so-called Y2K problem. Some 80% said they felt completely satisfied with their efforts.

[Sounds reassuring. Hmmm. 476 responded. Any that didn't respond? Doesn't say. Yet. Since most people who read the paper only read the first few paragraphs of a story, if the reader ends here, he is satisfied that Y2K isn't a big problem.

80% felt "completely satisfied"? Again, sounds good. What about the 20% that weren't? That seems like a significant minority. I want to know. But I won't read about it in this story.]

So far, the work has come at a price.

[$600 billion worldwide, by some estimates.]

Twenty-six employers reported they are spending in excess of $1 million on year 2000 computer issues. Another 352 employers said they were spending $100,000 or less.

[Something doesn't compute. 26+352=378. 476 responded. That leaves 98. Oh, they must have refused to answer.]

Almost 60%--281 of the respondents--were manufacturers. Another 29% were service companies.

[The other 11% apparently didn't know.]

The chief concern is whether microprocessors, which run everything from computers to coffee makers, will fail to recognize '00' on Jan. 1, 2000, and malfunction or shut down.

[This is a concern. The "chief" concern? Maybe. What about billing systems, accounting packages, inventory systems, etc.?]

WMC said 14% of the 3,455 surveys mailed out were returned.

[Huh? 86% did not respond?! Sounds to me like that is the real story here. In fact, that seems like headline material. What should I imply about the 86%? My guess is they fall into one of three categories:

1. "Y2K survey? What's Y2K?"

2. "None of your business. I don't have time for your silly survey. What are you going to do if I don't respond?"

3. "We're doing terribly, and we're not going to finish on time. This is a huge problem. But I checked with our lawyers, and they told me not to say that."

Most people haven't read this far, so let's hope they didn't catch that.]

WMC has more than 4,700 members representing 500,000 employees.

[Thousands of companies, and hundreds of thousands of lives are at risk.]

-- Steve Hartsman (hartsman@ticon.net), October 21, 1998

Answers

Oops. I misinterpreted. The other 98 companies spent between $100,000 and $1 million.

-- Steve Hartsman (hartsman@ticon.net), October 21, 1998.

Sorry, could only get through your first two paragraphs.

-- Believer (OYe@littlefaith.com), October 21, 1998.

Neat comments - in a back and forth way that's effective.

But a word of caution - if your "target" isn't already hostile, it might become that way after getting shot this effectively. But you've earlier indicated that this (the paper) isn't cooperating very much, so I figure that you aren't exactly best friends.

You're up in auto country - here's some more ammo.

The big three auto companies require their suppliers be certified to a specification called "QS 9000" - its very similar to the more general ISO 9000 for other businesses.

Latest "promise" (not a threat, just a promise) from the automotive industry is that "if you can't certify Y2K compliance to your QS 9000 auditor, you won't get the QS 9000 designation."

No QS 9000 designation, no sales to Ford, GM, or Chrysler; nor to anybody building parts for Ford, GM, or Chrysler.

Just something for small business owners to think about.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 21, 1998.


Following on from robert's comment, here in the UK auditors will be "qualifying" the accounts in 04/99 of companies that are not compliant, not sure of actual the legal definition. Whether you have an equivalent in the US I don't know. Qualifying normally applies if there is some serious financial problem in the accounts, but that they are still "acceptable", ie the company is not insolvent. Qualifying implies there is a question mark over the future of the company. This will bring it home to the bean counters that y2k has to be fixed.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 22, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ