First, please do not interpret the following as an attack on Jim
Phillips. It's not; all of us have by now received Y2K questionnaires,
and I suspect that most of us have now been forced in one way or another
to issue them.
Jim Phillips writes:
>Okay, I've heard from those "loonies" who are preaching doom and
>destruction when 1-1-2000 rolls around, and I've got to say that
>I was not real worried about their dire predictions. Hey, we're
>techies, right? We get paid to fix technical problems, so it
>shouldn't be a big deal, right?
>
>Well, I felt that way until I sent out Y2K questionnaires to our
>supplier base, and then reality set in. We have encountered the
>complete range of answers to the question "Are you Y2K compliant,
>and when?". From one of our sales reps refusing to answer the
>questionnaire (reason: "This questionnaire is intended for Therm-
>O-Link suppliers. We are a sales rep and would not fall into the
>supplier category"!), to "Yes, we are already compliant" (sure,
>and "The check is in the mail", "I'll still respect you in the
>morning", etc.), to "We're working on it".
So, what exactly do you want from them? Remember, the lawyers are even
now gearing up for a feeding frenzy. Go find Y2K articles in the lawyers'
trade press; they're scary (unless you're a lawyer). Some law firms are
even setting up special Y2K-litigation units. Any definite answer is
grounds for a lawsuit. The best thing to say is "I dunno, so if you're
relying on us to be Y2K-compliant, you've been warned."
What would satisfy the people who ask this question)? Detailed plans that
you won't understand and don't have the time, resources or knowledge to
verify? A definite "Yes" that will assure you of nothing, because of the
supplier's reliance on other suppliers? How about a definite "No" --
would that be better? Everyone's gathering lawyer-fodder; most of
Y2K-preparedness isn't "update your systems" but "cover your ass [arse,
outside the USA]."
>The "We're working on it" crowd is the one that gets me. For
>example,
>
>From Supplier A:
>
>"...Our projections are subject to risks and uncertainties. With
>regrets, we cannot provide any guarantees and this letter cannot
>create any liability for us..."
>
>Sure, and we can't guarantee that you'll get any future business
>from us, either.
Exactly, and that's what they want. Are you certifying to those who ask
that you absolutely will not experience business disruption because of
Y2K issues? There are Y2K issues beyond your control, but if you make an
absolute promise, you'll be held accountable. Remember, "best effort,"
"reasonable and prudent," and "due diligence" are all phrases invented by
lawyers to give them something for you to pay them to argue about.
Supplier A's letter is perfect. It says, "if you do business with us, you
accept the risk that our projections aren't accurate." They're gambling
that their track record of on-time delivery and accurate billing will be
more important to you as an indicator of credibility than some letter
that a disgruntled customer can wave in their face later on.
>"I guess by today's standards, our operations are pre-Dickens and
>we are still operating in the Dark Ages. All of our systems are
>manual - we do not use computers for any aspect of our business.
>Therefore, we anticipate no difficulty at Year 2000..."
>
>Wow! I guess they're ready for the Y10K problem as well.
Quick, go tell your lawyer. Unless their banks are also using manual
systems, and their landlords' banks, and their power company, and
everyone else they rely on are all using manual systems, they're using
computers for some aspect of their business. Do they have an autodial
telephone? There's a microprocessor in there. The fact that it couldn't
care a whit what the date is won't matter in the lawsuit: they said "no
computers" and you relied on that.
>Anyway, I think anybody who says (as I did) that there won't be any
>problems when the Y2K rolls around, obviously doesn't understand the
>depth of the problem. As for me, I'm stocking up on MRE's and staying
>home next New Year's Eve.
There will be minor disruptions, a few inconveniences, and a bunch of
funny stories, and we'll all get bills from *someone* with 100 years'
back interest or some such thing. But consider the flip side:
1. Visa International is already compliant, and they've already cut
off anyone whose systems aren't compliant (or they will on July 31;
one of the processors had a date last year and another this year).
2. The FAA originally thought it would be compliant by 2002. But as of
September 30 of last year, they had completed conversion of all but
one minor backup system, and they expected to finish that by March 31
of this year.
And so on. Don't expect the press to report a chorus of "We're finished!"
press releases. There's nothing exciting or titillating about
run-of-the-mill people doing their jobs correctly in the normal course of
business. Besides, nobody in their right mind would issue such a
statement, what with the sharks circling.
Really, go read the lawyers' trade press. There's a good reason for the
answers you're getting, and it has nothing to do with information systems
technology.
-- Bruce
PS. Sorry for the rant, but it seems like everyone's demanding this
information from everyone else not to help insure successes, but to blame
someone else for -- and if possible, profit from -- the failures. "Nyaah,
nyaah, nyaah, you can't get me!" Now _there's_ a productive attitude. For
this, I needed 20+ years of school? Maybe the guy who wrote "Everything I
really need to know, I learned in kindergarten" was on to somthing.
- B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Toback Tel: (602) 996-8601| My candle burns at both ends;
OPT, Inc. (800) 858-4507| It will not last the night;
11801 N. Tatum Blvd. Ste. 142 | But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends -
Phoenix AZ 85028 | It gives a lovely light.
btoback AT optc.com | -- Edna St. Vincent Millay
Mail sent to [log in to unmask] will be inspected for a
fee of US$250. Mailing to said address constitutes agreement to
pay, including collection costs.
|
