Part 5
"In Case of Fire, Yell 'Fire' "
by

Paula D. Gordon, Ph.D.

                                                  September 17, 1999

                                        Introduction

George Orwell once wrote:

"To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle."

Taking action after "see(ing) what is in front of one's nose" can be an
even greater struggle ~ whether one sees smoke from smoldering fires on
the verge of erupting or a global crisis that is unfolding.
 
 

Taking action based on what one sees can be extremely problematic. It can
take nerve. It can require courage and character. It can require initiative,
willpower, leadership, and vision. Procrastination or reluctance to take any
action at all can also get in the way. Choosing from multiple
possible courses of action can be even more difficult. It can be especially
difficult to choose among possible courses of action if the problem is so
large and so daunting that it has the potential of impacting the nation and
the world. Imagining what the options might be and what their respective
impacts might be can be all the harder. It can be extremely challenging to
imagine how any given course of action might affect the future, let alone
comparing the relative impacts of different courses of action. Not many
people are skilled at using their imaginations in this way. Nor are many
naturally inclined to do so. In fact, some people view it as a fruitless
pursuit.

Part 5 is written for those who believe that there can be merit in
envisaging courses of action that could lead to a "best possible" outcome.

The Founding Fathers are examples of extraordinary individuals who
were skilled at envisaging the future. At a critical juncture in history, they
were able to envisage different courses of action and choose among them
to create the experiment known as America. They sized up their situation,
they considered their options, and they took action based on their values
and their vision. Because of their conviction and the actions they took, and
because of subsequent efforts that many others have given their lives for,
the legacy of the Founding Fathers lives on to this day.

We have come to another critical juncture in history. The future is in
jeopardy owing to the failure of the present Administration or the Congress
to recognize the seriousness of a set of threats and challenges to the nation
and the world posed by the Y2K and embedded systems crisis. The
Administration and the Congress have placed this nation's future in jeopardy
as a result of their failure to recognize the seriousness of the situation that
we are in and to take action. Their inaction has placed this nation in
jeopardy in ways that could surpass all previous threats and challenges to
the nation. Their continuing failure to act may well result in untold harm to
the general welfare and to the security of the nation and the world. Their
failure to act may result in harm to life, limb, and property, to the
environment, and to an already fragile social fabric. Their failure to act may
result in such great harm to the nation and the world that recovery could
take a decade or longer.

The crisis could unfold in a wide range of different ways. I describe in
Part 5 some features that could distinguish these different ways in which the
Y2K and embedded systems crisis could unfold. My purpose is to help
clarify some real choices that are ours to make concerning the set of
problems that is right in front of our noses now.

The choices include the following:

~ Act now or deal with the consequences for our inaction later.

~ Devote adequate efforts and resources to the minimizing the impacts now
or devote extraordinary amounts of efforts and resources trying the repair
the damage after it has been done.

~ Pay now or pay much, much more later.

These choices seem to be clear to only a relative few people at the
moment. The choices by no means seem clear to the majority of those in
roles of public and private sector responsibility.

In other parts of this White Paper, I have tried to explain why it is that
people can have very different perspectives concerning the Y2K and
embedded systems crisis. Indeed some people do not fully comprehend
any aspect of the crisis, including the fact that it is a crisis. In the
previous parts of the White Paper, I have tried to explain the nature of the
crisis. I have also recommended an approach that government could be taking to
minimize the impacts. While this approach encompasses the remediation
of information technology systems and an emphasis on contingency
planning, it goes well beyond the focus of current efforts.

There is no assurance that the President, the Administration, or the
Congress will begin to recognize the crisis that we are in. There is no
assurance that they will take actions that could significantly minimize the
impacts on this nation and the world. If the Federal government fails to
act, then action by others in the public and private sectors becomes a principal
option. If the Federa government does not accept the responsibility for
safeguarding the public good, then it is up to others in society, including
individuals and institutions, to assume roles of responsibility and to fill
in the void left by the failure of the Federal government to act.

In Part 5 of the White Paper, I describe the key characteristics of
three scenarios that could unfold. Scenario 1 is a status quo scenario
that would involve very little change in the current direction of efforts and no
change in the present very low levels of pre-rollover funding. One group
estimates that the global costs will be over a trillion dollars ~ and that
does not include assets that are transferred as a result of litigation.
(Some have estimated the latter at several trillion dollars.)

Scenario 2A and 2B are the "Best Case Scenarios". Scenarios 2A
and 2B involve the implementation of action plans which would help
ensure ~ to the extent humanly possible ~ that everything that can be done is
done in the time remaining to minimize the impacts of the crisis. Actions
would result in minimizing the ultimate cost of crisis response, recovery, and
restoration efforts. If billions more were dedicated to ensuring that safety
critical systems did not fail in all of the highest risk, highest hazard
systems, plants, sites, facilities, pipelines, etc., then the ultimate cost
could be significantly lower than the trillion dollar estimate just cited.

The premise of Scenario 2A is that government will assume its proper
role of responsibility and take all actions necessary and possible. The
premise of Scenario 2B is that the Federal government fails to assume its
proper role of responsibility, and other governmental and non-governmental
entities step in and apply the resources necessary to address the crisis in as
effective a way as possible in the limited time that remains.
 

Some Near Term Scenarios and Their Possible Long Term Consequences

The months between now and January 1, 2000 could unfold in any of
a number of ways. Certain scenarios can be envisaged if national and
global Y2K efforts continue at their current low levels of activity over the
next few months before the rollover. On the other hand, quite different
scenarios could be expected to unfold if maximum resources and well orchestrated
efforts were directed toward addressing the threats and challenges posed by
the Y2K and embedded systems crisis before the rollover. In this part of
the White Paper, I shall compare three scenarios:

~ A "Status Quo" Scenario (Scenario 1): The "Status Quo" Scenario is a
possible scenario that could unfold given the current low level of attention
being given to addressing the Y2K and embedded systems crisis. It is an
approach that fails to reflect an understanding of the nature, scope, and
complexity of the crisis; indeed it is an approach that fails to reflect an
understanding of the fact that we are in a crisis situation; and

~ Two Versions of a "Best Case" Scenario (Scenarios 2A and 2B): In both
these two "Best Case" Scenarios, maximum resources and efforts are
applied to addressing the Y2K and embedded systems crisis. In both
scenarios, the Y2K and embedded systems crisis is understood as a crisis
involving the convergence of problem threads which could lead to cascading
impacts, including infrastructure disruptions, technological disasters,
economic dislocations, and societal upheaval.

In Scenario 2A, the Federal government would assume its rightful role
of responsibility in doing what could be done prior to the rollover to
reduce the likelihood of disruptions, disasters, dislocations, and unrest that could
occur inspite of best efforts. In Scenario 2B, other governmental and
non-governmental entities would act in wholly lawful ways to fill the vacuum
left by the failure of the Federal government to assume its role of
responsibility. The resulting accomplishments would be similar to those in
Scenario 2A.

Key features of these scenarios are identified and contrasted in Part 5. My
purpose in doing so is to point out how different perceptions of the crisis
can be and how dissimilar approaches can be to addressing the crisis.
Another purpose is to point out how different the outcomes could be. One
of my primary intentions in writing Part 5 is to drive home the realization that
it would be infinitely more costly in the long run to continue on our present
course of relative inaction than it would be to apply all the resources and
efforts that we can muster to addressing the Y2K and embedded systems
crisis as fully as possible in the few months that remain.

Our choices boil down to the following:

~ Act now or deal with the consequences for our inaction later.

~ Devote adequate efforts and resources to the minimizing the impacts now
or devote extraordinary amounts of efforts and resources trying the repair
the damage after it has been done.

~ Pay now or pay much, much more later.

It is not essential to the purpose of this part of the White Paper to
focus in any extensive manner on estimates of likely or possible impacts.
Just as no one is in a position to predict the weather with exactitude, no one
is in a position to predict with any degree of exactitude what the specific
impacts of the Y2K and the embedded systems crisis might be. There are
many, too many unknown factors that could be involved. The least
predictable of these are the human factors. For instance, what will the
public do, if the vast majority do not recognize the seriousness of the
situation until just before or at the time of the rollover? Will a sufficient
number of individuals who have the needed expertise remain in their
positions and continue to apply their knowledge and skills to the tasks at
hand? Will those in positions of responsibility at work in plants, facilities,
and pipelines know to do the right thing if there are failures? Will they be
prepared to take actions that will minimize impacts if and when something
goes wrong? Will they be able to do this in a situation that may include
infrastructure disruptions ot technological disasters or both?

There are a growing number of assessments concerning possible or
likely impacts currently available on the Web and in print. In order to give
readers some notion of the magnitude of impacts that some people are
anticipating, I will cite a September 1999 report of the results of a survey of
opinions. The report involves the results of a set of non-scientific surveys
that involved 200 self-selected respondents. These individuals were all
participants in a discussion group on the Web. Highest on the list of
anticipated consequences were the following:

    - a Dow Jones average of between 3000 and 6000
    - a national state of emergency of longer than 90 days
    - more than 100 million people killed worldwide
    - US power outages of up to several weeks in some areas
    - some serious wars and disasters
    - a mass panic around Dec 1999
    - a regression to 1950-level technological efficiency
    - gold prices at $1000 an ounce
    - rationing of gasoline or essentially no commercial gasoline
        available
_________________________________________________________________________

Note: For the thread in which the results of the Y2K Effect on the Stock
Market Poll and the Y2K Severity Survey are reported, see
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001LIG
The Y2K Severity Survey can also be found in fuller detail at http://apps4.vantagenet.com/zsv/survey.asp?n=11&id=983105436&comme
nt=&finish=Finish&final=1.
___________________________________________________________
 

It is within the realm of possibility that the Status Quo Scenario could
result in any or all of the kinds of consequences that are identified by the
survey respondents. As noted earlier, the possible costs could be over a
trillion dollars (excluding litigation costs) and several trillion more if
litigation costs are factored in. For the purposes of Part 5, these survey
consequences along with the cost estimates, will be considered as the
possible consequences and costs of the hypothetical Status Quo Scenario,
Scenario 1.

The thesis of Part 5 is that employing either of the Best Case
Scenarios could reduce significantly all of these consequences and costs.
How much would depend on how soon efforts were started and how
effectively they were carried out. They would also depend on the quality of
leadership, the understanding and trust of the public, the organizational
capacities and resources of those heading up efforts, to name but a few
elements that would be key to the success of either of the Best Case
Scenarios.

Comparing Scenarios Using a Set of Parameters

What follows is a brief description of features that characterize the
Status Quo Scenario and of features that could characterize the two
versions of a Best Case Scenario. These scenarios are hypothetical.
They are based on educated guesses concerning very different approaches
that might be applied to addressing the present crisis. These approaches
assume the same starting point: the current state of affairs. They take into
consideration the "Status Quo" approach that is in place now and the
current status of political or private sector will, leadership, and commitment
of resources that is being brought to bear on the problem.

An analysis of the status of Y2K efforts as of the end of February
1999, can be found in Parts 1, 2, and 3 of this White Paper on Y2K
(http://users.rcn.com/pgordon/y2k/). The basic starting point for
Part 5 has been generally described there and in Part 4.

Part 4 provides an overview of some of the developments that have
occurred in national and global efforts between February and August of
1999. In addition, explanations are offered in Part 4 concerning the
President's approach to the Y2K and embedded systems crisis: his failure
to treat the crisis as a "crisis", his failure to comprehend the nature and
scope of the problems associated with Y2K and embedded systems, and his
apparent reluctance to take any of a range of proactive steps before the
rollover that would help minimize the impact of the crisis here and abroad.

One may look at the explanation offered in Part 4 in a variety of ways. One
may concur with the explanation or simply conclude that the
explanation is plausible. Another alternative is to reject the analysis that is
provided. Whatever one's stance concerning the plausibility of the
explanation, many people should be able to agree on the following key
points:

~ the President ~ for whatever reason ~ has not seen fit to declare the
situation a crisis;

~ He has not provided the leadership the situation requires; and

~ He has not brought the resources of the government to bear in a way that
the crisis requires.

~ He has not taken a range of proactive steps that would have helped to
minimize the impact of the crisis here and abroad.

The Congress has also failed to exercise the kind of leadership it
could have exercised. Indeed, the Senate Committee on the Year 2000 Technology
Problem has not been given legislative authority and not like to
seek such authority.

Neither the Senate Committee nor the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology of the Committee on
Government Reform of the House has taken all possible action to ensure
that technological disasters are kept to a minimum in this country and
around the world. Neither has acted in a concerted and sustained manner
to ensure that government efforts are organized and funded adequately to
address the crisis effectively. Funding has not been given to State and
local governments to help ensure that they remain fully functional at the
rollover. Neither of these key committees has acted to ensure that
members of the public are both adequately aware of the nature and scope of
the crisis. Neither has taken steps that help ensure that members of the
public are as prepared as they can be to meet the challenges that the crisis
poses.

Congressional efforts have involved hearings, reports, and
assessments on a wide range of national and global issues pertaining to
Year 2000 technology problems. They have emphasized, as well, the
monitoring of the internal progress of Federal agencies. With very limited
exceptions, these efforts have not included the funding of state, county, and
local governments to ensure their readiness. To date, they have failed to
focus on the reorganization of Federal efforts to address the crisis along
proactive, crisis-oriented lines. They have not focused Federal efforts on
taking all steps possible to ensuring the health and safety of the public or
the protection of the environment. They have not included a major
emphasis on problemsolving or any kind of comprehensive approach to
addressing and ameliorating the crisis here or abroad. Efforts have not
been focused on making sure that government is equipped to address the
full range of complexities, threats and challenges posed by the Y2K and
embedded systems crisis. Efforts have not included a proactive focus on
minimizing to the extent possible the highest hazards risks here and abroad.
 

The Parameters for Contrasting the Scenarios
 

The following parameters are used here to compare and contrast the
different scenarios:

~ Problem Definition: This parameter focuses on some ways in which the
scope of Y2K technology problems are defined. Y2K problem definitions
can take a wide range of forms that can typically include an emphasis on
one of the following:

    - A problem primarily involving information technology and
        communications technology

    - A problem involving information technology and embedded
        systems

    - A problem involving information technology, embedded
        systems, and connectivity and interdependency issues

~ Perspectives on Current Efforts: This parameter focuses on that various
perspectives concerning the scope and adequacy of present efforts. Two
different perspectives can include the following:

    - The view that current efforts are well matched to the
seriousness of the problem; adequate resources have been
dedicated to addressing the problem; and good progress is
being made;

    - The view that current efforts fall short of addressing the
threats and challenges posed by the Y2K and embedded systems
crisis. A view that current efforts are marked by an absence of
political will and leadership, a failure to acknowledge that we
are in a crisis situation, and a failure to dedicate adequate
resources and take needed action.

~ Key Players Involved: This parameter focuses on key players and
categories of key players who might be involved in any given scenario.
Any or all of a variety may be included:

    - The President;

    - The President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion

    - The Executive Branch;

    - Relevant Committees of the House and Senate;

    - The Congress, the General Accounting Office, and the
       Congressional Research Service;

    - State, County, and Local governments;

    - public sector officials;

    - persons in roles of private sector responsibility;

    - the non-profit sector and leadership within that sector;

    - religious organizations and the faith community;

    - grassroots organizations and movements;

    - academic institutions;

    - the general public; and

    - the media

~ Primary Focus of Efforts: This parameter focuses on the way in which the
efforts are directed. Some possibilities include:

    - a focus on the internal systems of one's own "sphere" such as
the agencies of the Federal government; the agencies of a state
or local government; or a specific corporation, business,
association, or organization;

    - a focus that includes both the internal systems of one's own
"sphere" or organization and the supply chain vital to the
functioning of that sphere;

    - a focus on all of the above, plus the preservation of the
general welfare of the nation and the stability of the national
economy;

    - a focus on all of the above, plus a focus on the preservation
of global social and economic stability and global environmental
sustainability.

~ Embedded Systems: This parameter focuses on the nature and degree
of understanding of the complexity of the embedded systems aspect of the
crisis. Some of the different perspectives can include the following:

    - Minor concern based on the view that there is "insufficient
proof" to warrant significant concern and/or that "far fewer
problems than were anticipated have been found";

    - Moderate concern, including recognition that much higher
percentages of malfunctioning embedded systems have been
found in specific sectors;

    - Major concern, particularly regarding "safety critical"
systems of high hazard systems, plants, sites, facilities,
refineries, and pipelines, etc.; and recognition that the
highest percentages of malfunctioning embedded systems have been
found in specific sectors.
 
 

~ Primary Objectives That Focus on Information and Awareness: This
parameter focuses on the implicit or explicit concerns regarding information
and awareness that drive the approach described in the scenario. Concerns
could include any or all of the following:

       - informing the public in a way that does not divulge the
full details of seriousness of possible impacts. Adopting this
approach out of a concern that divulging the full details would
lead to panic;

    - informing the members of the public fully so that they will be
able to make a sound judgments concerning their preparations
for Y2K. The focus might encompass concerns for preparations
that extend beyond themselves, their families, and friends to
their communities, the nation, and the world.

~ Primary Objectives: Emergency Preparedness: This parameter focuses
on the extent to which the approach taken emphasizes the importance of
preparedness. Preparedness actions are defined as actions that would help
ensure that minimum needs were met for a specific period of time. During
that period of time, there could be infrastructure disruptions and/or
technological disasters. A range of such approaches to preparedness have
been characterized in the following way:

    - "a flashlight and batteries, warm blankets, and a couple of
extra cans of food" (recommendations being made and
publicized in August and September of 1999 by the Senate
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem);

    - a three to seven day supply of food and water, and a seven
day supply of prescription medicine, blankets, radio, flashlight;

    - provisions that would enable an individual or a group to survive
over a two to three week period of time without normal sources
of electricity and fuel, drinkable water, and means to replenish
food supplies and medical and pharmaceutical supplies;

    - provisions that would enable an individual or a group to survive
over a prolonged period of time (determined by them) without
normal sources of electricity and fuel, drinkable water, and
means to replenish food supplies and medical and pharmaceutical
supplies.

~ The Appropriate "Storm" Metaphor: This parameter pertains to several
different metaphors that have been used to describe the severity of situations
that would necessitate taking preparedness measures. These
can include the following:

    - three day (mild) winter storm necessitating minimal
    preparedness measures;

    - three to seven day winter storm necessitating more extensive
        preparedness measures;

    - a storm that requires two to three weeks of preparedness
        measures;

    - a storm that has impacts similar to the ice storms in 1998 that
lasted for over four weeks in parts of New England and
Canada. Extraordinary measures need to be taken to
ensure comfort as well as survival in a storm of this intensity and
duration. Ideally the lessons learned from such storms
will be incorporated in future preparedness efforts;

    - a worst case storm coupled with technological disasters
creating a situation calling for complex humanitarian emergency
response and recovery efforts requiring additional preparedness
measures above and beyond those needed to get through the
New England and Canadian ice storms. Such preparedness
plans would include provisions for evacuations from affected
areas and possible provisions for resettlements.

~ The "Time Bombs in a Room" Metaphor: This parameter relates
to different ways that a person can approach the Y2K and embedded systems
crisis. The metaphor involves being locked in a room filled with time bombs
of different sizes. You are told that the time bombs are apt to begin going
off at a given point in time. What do you do? Some of the possible range of
responses include:

    - Get experts to render all the time bombs harmless
without focusing on the most threatening ones first;

    - Get experts to begin to render the time bombs harmless,
focusing on the largest and most threatening ones first;

    - Plan on what you will do when the time bombs go off;

    - Take steps to minimize the impacts to the extent possible by
dismantling the time bombs likely to do the most damage. At
the same time focus on crisis response and recovery planning in
the event that you cannot get render all the time bombs
harmless in time.

~ The Emergency Management Cycle: This parameter has to do with the
relative emphasis that is placed on remediation, emergency preparedness
and recovery planning and implementation efforts. The range of options
could include any of the following:

    - attention solely fixed on assessment, remediation, and testing;

    - attention solely focuses on assessment, remediation, and
        testing and contingency planning;

    - attention focused on contingency planning;

    - attention focused on all of the following: assessment,
remediation, and testing; contingency planning and emergency
preparedness and recovery planning and implementation.

~ Likelihood of Panic Reactions: This parameter focuses on the extent to
which the general approach to addressing Y2K is likely to quell panic and
contribute to social stability. Some possibilities include the following:

    - In this approach nearterm panic is viewed as being unlikely owing to
the fact that few are aware of the seriousness of the problem.
However, panic is viewed as being highly likely when awareness of the
seriousness of the situation becomes apparent shortly before the
rollover and at the time of the rollover.

    - In this approach, it is assumed that the concern of the public will
grow exponentially as the rollover nears and that the more time there
is to process fear, anxiety, grief, and anger, the better off people
will be. (Fear and anxiety can be anticipated owing to uncertainties and
a shaken sense of security. Grief can be anticipated owing to the major
losses that may be incurred. Anger can be expected to be directed
toward those who could have and should have warned them before
now.) It can take considerable time to work through these intense
emotions. By raising awareness as long in advance of the rollover as
possible, the public will have more of an opportunity to process their
emotions. They will also have as much time as possible to get used to
the idea of preparing and take needed preparedness steps. In this
way, they may be able to achieve some sense of security before,
during, and after the rollover. The success of this approach can
depend on the adequacy of leadership provided and the extent to
which members of the public focus their energies on preparedness.

~ Near Term Dedication of Resources: This parameter focuses on what
the likely near term dedication of resources of a given scenario might be. A
range of possibilities could include the following:

    - no additional dedication of resources prior to the rollover;

    - a few hundred million dollars worth of resources added to resources
already in place before the rollover;

    - tens of billions of dollars in additional resources would be dedicated
to ensure that harmful impacts are minimized to the extent possible,
that the fullest possible preparedness steps are taken, and that
response and recovery plans are in place and ready to be
implemented;

    - if global impacts were also to be minimized to the extent possible,
additional billions would need to be devoted to implementing the full
range of global actions needed.

~Likely Long Term Outcomes: This parameter focuses on the likely long
term outcomes that would follow were a given scenario to run its course.
The range of outcomes includes some of the following possibilities:

    - The degree of panic and social disorder could be great owing to the
absence of preparedness measures and the lack of awareness of the
nature and scope of the problem. When a significant portion of the
public learns about the possibility of serious impacts or when they
hear about serious impacts occurring around the world, they may
become extremely upset. This is especially likely if they previously
had little or no understanding of the possible impacts. Since the
public has not been adequately prepared and since they have been
given little or no forewarning, many might begin acting irrationally.
If this were to happen, social cohesiveness would be threatened. If
people in other parts of the world were also insufficiently prepared,
their behavior might also become irrational. Depending of the severity
of the impacts, large segments of populations might be forced to
relocate adding to the fragility of the social fabric.

    - If massive efforts to raise awareness were undertaken sufficiently
ahead of time and adequate preparedness steps urged and facilitated,
there would be the best possibility of getting through the most difficult
of situations without major damage to the social fabric. Level headed
leadership would need to be exercised by heads of governments and
others in roles of public influence beginning as soon in advance of the
rollover as possible. Such leadership would need to emerge in order
for the social fabric to survive with the least amount of damage. If
significant resources and efforts were directed to minimizing the
number of technological disasters, fewer regions of the world would
be likely to suffer severe long range impacts.

~ Ultimate Costs: This parameter focuses on the ultimate costs that might
be associated with a given scenario. The range of these costs might be
characterized in any of the following ways:

    - negligible;

    - minimum lives lost, minimum possible impacts on public
health and safety, minimal weakening of the social fabric, and minimal
environmental impacts.

    - moderate loss of life, moderate consequences in terms of public
health and safety and environmental degradation;

    - incalculable losses in terms of loss of life, public health and
safety consequences, weakening of the social fabric, and environmental
degradation and destruction.
 
 

************************************************************************************************

************************************************************************************************

~  Problem Definition:   This parameter focuses on some ways in which  the
scope of Y2K technology problems are defined

Scenario 1:

                - A problem primarily involving information technology and
                communications technology, and to a much lesser extent
                embedded systems

Scenario 2A and 2B:

                - A problem involving information technology, embedded
                systems, and connectivity and interdependency issues

___________________________________________________________
 

~  Perspectives on Current Efforts:   This parameter focuses on that various
perspectives concerning the scope and adequacy of present efforts.
 

Scenario 1:

        - The view that current efforts are well matched to the
        seriousness of the problem;  adequate resources have been
        dedicated to addressing the problem;  and good progress is
        being made;

Scenarios 2A and 2B:

        -  The view that current efforts fall short of addressing the
threats and challenges posed by the Y2K and embedded systems
crisis. A view that current efforts are marked by an absence of
political will and leadership,  a failure to acknowledge that we
are in a crisis situation,  and a failure to dedicate adequate
resources and take needed action.

~  Key Players Involved:   This parameter focuses on key players and
categories of key players who might be involved in any given scenario.

Scenario 1:

                -   The President;
                -   The President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion
                -   The Executive Branch;
                -   Relevant Committees of the House and Senate;
                -   The General Accounting Office
                -   public sector officials;
                -   persons in roles of private sector responsibility;
                -   the non-profit sector and leadership within that sector;
                -   the general public; and
                -   the media (to a small extent)

Scenario 2A:

                -   The President;
                -   The President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion
                -   The Executive Branch;
                -   Relevant Committees of the House and Senate;
                -   The Congress, the General Accounting Office, and the
                Congressional Research Service;
                -  State, County, and Local governments;
                -   public sector officials;
                -   persons in roles of private sector responsibility;
                -   academic institutions
                -   the non-profit sector and leadership within that sector;
                -   religious organizations and the faith community;
                -   grassroots organizations and movements;
                -   the general public; and
                -   the media (in a significant way)

Scenario 2B:

                -   The Congress, the General Accounting Office, and the
                Congressional Research Service;
                -  State, County, and Local governments;
                -   public sector officials;
                -   persons in roles of private sector responsibility;
                -   the non-profit sector and leadership within that sector;
                -   academic institutions
                -   religious organizations and the faith community;
                -   grassroots organizations and movements;
                -   the general public; and
                -   the media  (in a significant way)

____________________________________________________________

~ Primary Focus of Efforts:  This parameter focuses on the way in which the
efforts are directed.

Scenario 1:

        -  a focus on the internal systems of one's own "sphere" such as
        the agencies of the Federal government; the agencies of a state
        or local government;  or a specific corporation, business,
        association, or organization;

Scenario 2A and 2B:

                -  a focus that includes both the internal systems of one's own
                "sphere" or organization and the supply chain vital to the
                functioning of that sphere, plus the preservation of the
                general welfare of the nation and the stability of the national
                economy and a  focus on the preservation of global social and
                economic stability and global environmental sustainability.

___________________________________________________________

~  Embedded Systems:   This parameter focuses on the nature and degree
of understanding of the complexity of the embedded systems aspect of the
crisis.

Scenario 1:

        - Minor to moderate concern based on the view that there is
"insufficient proof" to warrant significant concern and/or that
"far fewer problems than were anticipated have been found";

Scenario 2A and 2B

        - Major concern, particularly regarding "safety critical"
systems of high hazard systems, plants, sites, facilities,
refineries, and pipelines, etc.; and recognition that the
highest percentages of malfunctioning embedded systems have been found
in specific sectors.
 __________________________________________________________

~ Primary Objectives That  Focus on Information and Awareness:  This
parameter focuses on the implicit or explicit concerns regarding information
and awareness that drive the approach described in the scenario.

Scenario 1:

                - informing the public in a way that does not divulge the
full details of seriousness of possible impacts.  Adopting this
approach out of a concern that divulging the full details would
lead to panic

Scenario 2A and 2B:

        - informing the members of the public fully so that they will be
able to make a sound judgments concerning their preparations
for Y2K.  The focus might encompass concerns for preparations
that extend beyond themselves, their families, and friends to
their communities,  the nation, and the world.

___________________________________________________________

~ Primary Objectives:  Emergency Preparedness:   This parameter focuses
on the extent to which the approach taken emphasizes the importance of
preparedness.  Preparedness actions are defined as actions that would help
ensure that minimum needs were met for a specific period of time.  During
that period of time, there could be infrastructure disruptions and/or
technological disasters.

Scenario 1:

        - "a flashlight and batteries, warm blankets, and a couple of
extra cans of food"  to   a three to seven day supply of food and water,
and a seven day supply of prescription medicine, blankets, radio, flashlight;
 

Scenario 2A and 2B:

        - provisions that would enable an individual or a group to
survive at least over a two to three week period of time
without normal sources of electricity and fuel,  drinkable water, and
means to replenish food supplies and medical and pharmaceutical supplies
___________________________________________________________

~ The Appropriate "Storm" Metaphor:    This parameter pertains to several
different metaphors that have been used to describe the severity of
situations that would necessitate taking preparedness measures.

        - three day (mild) winter storm necessitating minimal
preparedness measures to a  three to seven day winter storm
necessitating more extensive preparedness measures;

Scenario 2A and 2B

        ~ a storm that has impacts similar to the ice storms in 1998 that
lasted for over four weeks in parts of New England and
Canada.   Extraordinary measures need to be taken to
ensure comfort as well as survival in a storm of this intensity and
duration.   Ideally the lessons learned from such storms will be
incorporated in future preparedness efforts;  including the possibility of
a worst case storm coupled with technological disasters creating a situation
calling for complex humanitarian emergency response and recovery efforts
requiring additional preparedness measures above and beyond those needed
to get through the New England and Canadian ice storms.  Such
preparedness plans would include provisions for evacuations
from affected areas and possible provisions for resettlements.
__________________________________________________________

~ The "Time Bombs in a Room" Metaphor:    This parameter relates to
different ways that a person can approach the Y2K and embedded systems
crisis.   The metaphor involves being locked in a room filled with time bombs
of different sizes.  You are told that the time bombs are apt to begin going
off at a given point in time.  What do you do?

Scenario 1:
                -  Plan on what you will do when the time bombs go off (current
                emphasis);

Scenario 2A and 2B:

                - Take steps to minimize the impacts to the extent possible by
                dismantling the time bombs likely to do the most damage.  At
                the same time focus on crisis response and recovery planning in
                the event that you cannot get render all the time bombs harmless in time.

___________________________________________________________

~ The Emergency Management Cycle:   This parameter has to do with the
relative emphasis that is placed on remediation,  emergency preparedness
and recovery planning and implementation efforts.

Scenario 1:

        - attention fixed  partly on assessment, remediation, and    testing;
and partly on contingency planning

Scenario 2A and 2B:

        -  attention focused on all of the following:  assessment,
        remediation, and testing; contingency planning and emergency
        preparedness and recovery planning and implementation.
__________________________________________________________

~  Likelihood of Panic Reactions:  This parameter focuses on the extent to
which the general approach to addressing Y2K is likely to quell panic and
contribute to social stability.

Scenario 1:

        -  In this approach nearterm panic is viewed as being unlikely owing to
        the fact that few are aware of the seriousness of the problem.
        However, panic is viewed as being highly likely when awareness of
        the seriousness of the situation becomes apparent shortly before the
        rollover and at the time of the rollover.

Scenario 2A and 2B:

        -  In this approach, it is assumed that the concern of the public will
        grow exponentially as the rollover nears and that the more time there
        is to process fear, anxiety, grief, and anger, the better off people
        will be. (Fear and anxiety can be anticipated owing to uncertainties and a
        shaken sense of security.  Grief can be anticipated owing to the major
        losses that may be incurred.  Anger can be expected to be directed
        toward those who could have and should have warned them before
        now.)   It can take considerable time to work through these intense
        emotions.    By raising awareness as long in advance of the rollover as
        possible,  the public will have more of an opportunity to process their
        emotions.  They will also have as much time as possible to get used to
        the idea of preparing and  take needed preparedness steps.  In this
        way,  they may be able to achieve some sense of security before,
        during, and after the rollover.   The success of this approach can
        depend on the adequacy of leadership provided and the extent to
        which members of the public focus their energies on preparedness.
___________________________________________________________

~ Near Term Dedication of Resources:    This parameter focuses on what
the likely near term dedication of resources of a given scenario might be

Scenario 1:

        - no additional dedication of resources prior to the rollover;

Scenario 2A and 2B :

        - tens of billions of dollars in additional resources would be
        dedicated to ensure that harmful impacts are minimized to the extent
        possible,that the fullest possible preparedness steps are taken, and that
        response and recovery plans are in place and ready to be
        implemented;

        - if global impacts were also to be minimized to the extent possible,
        additional billions would need to be devoted to implementing the full
        range of global actions needed.
__________________________________________________________

~Likely Long Term Outcomes:   This parameter focuses on the likely long
term outcomes that would follow were a given scenario to run its course.

Scenario 1

        - The degree of panic and social disorder could be great owing to the
        absence of preparedness measures and the lack of awareness of the
        nature and scope of the problem.   When a significant portion of the
        public learns about the possibility of serious impacts or when they
        hear about serious impacts occurring around the world,  they may
        become extremely upset.  This is especially likely if they previously
        had little or no understanding of the possible impacts.  Since the
        public has not been adequately prepared and since they have been
        given little or no forewarning,  many might begin acting irrationally.
        If this were to happen, social cohesiveness would be threatened.   If
        people in other parts of the world were also insufficiently prepared,
        their behavior might also become irrational.  Depending of the severity
        of the impacts, large segments of populations might be forced to
        relocate adding to the fragility of the social fabric.
 
 

Scenario 2A and 2B:

        -  If massive efforts to raise awareness were undertaken sufficiently
        ahead of time and adequate preparedness steps urged and facilitated,
        there would be the best possibility of getting through the most difficult
        of situations without major damage to the social fabric.  Level  headed
        leadership would need to be exercised by heads of governments and
        others in roles of public influence beginning as soon in advance of the
        rollover as possible.  Such leadership would need to emerge in order
        for the social fabric to survive with the least amount of damage.  If
        significant resources and efforts were directed to minimizing the
        number of technological disasters,  fewer regions of the world would
        be likely to suffer severe long range impacts.
__________________________________________________________

~  Ultimate Costs:  This parameter focuses on the ultimate costs that might
be associated with a given scenario.

Scenario 1:

        -   incalculable losses in terms of loss of life, public health and safety
            consequences,  weakening of the social fabric, and environmental
            degradation and destruction.

Scenario 2A and 2B:
        -  minimum lives lost, minimum possible impacts on public health and
            safety, minimal weakening of the social fabric, and minimal
            environmental impacts.
 

**********************************************************************************************

                                    At the Crossroads

        As of mid-September of 1999, it appears to be the case that the
President is reluctant to acknowledge or treat Y2K as the crisis that it is.
It appears that he has decided to wait to take significant new action until
after the rollover.  If he has indeed made a conscious decision to focus
efforts on the rollover and post rollover periods, and if he cannot be
encouraged to adopt a strategy more along the lines of the Best Case
Scenario strategy (Scenario 2A),  there would seem to be a limited number of
options open to the American people.  One would be to try to encourage the
Congress to take action, passing legislation that would force the Executive Branch to act.
The General Accounting Office could also play a major role in raising
awareness and providing information and technical assistance to the public
and private sectors.   This scenario has not been elaborated in Part 5.
Some related initiatives have been described in Part 3 of the White Paper.

        Another scenario would be for the public sector (without the Federal
government) along with the non-profit sector and the private sector to team
up in an effort to make up for the vacuum left by the absence of leadership
by the President and the Administration.  This would be Scenario 2B.

        For now,  the President and the Congress seem disinclined to take the
steps that are needed to fully address the threats and challenges posed by
the Y2K and embedded systems crisis.  For now, the President and the
Congress appear to be putting short term concerns above a concern for the
crisis that we are in.  They are effectively allowing themselves to be
sidetracked by the continuing series of far less significant issues,
controversies, and investigations.   Revisiting the past is a luxury we can ill
afford at this moment in our history.   Even the early startup of the
Presidential campaign has had the effect of diverting the public's attention
from Y2K, and,  thus far, with few exceptions, the Presidential candidates
have tended to be very quiet on the subject of the crisis that we are in.

        Had there been a similar absence of leadership and statesmanship in
the crisis we found ourselves in the 1940s,  the Allies could not have won
World War II and efforts to restore in Europe could not have been so successful.
We would be living in a far different world today.

        As in World War II,  the future of this nation and of the world is once
again in the balance.  This time, however, in many ways the stakes are
considerably higher.  This time the social fabric could not be in greater
jeopardy owing to the failure to inform the public about the seriousness of
the threats and challenges that we face.   This time the sustainability of the
environment is also in serious jeopardy, regionally, and even globally.

        This time our future is threatened by time bombs that a sector of
society has inadvertently been instrumental in "planting".  This has come
about through a whole host of factors including shortsightedness, bad
judgment, and expedient decisions made as a result of economic pressures.
We ended up here as a cumulative result of a lot of people not recognizing
or owning up to the long term consequences of their actions.

        There is no way of escaping the situation that we are in.  We need
now to exercise every iota of common sense and ingenuity to minimize the
harmful impacts of this cumulative dumbness.  The largest and most
potentially devastating of these time bombs that are there waiting to go off
need to be found as soon as possible and remediated or rendered
harmless.   At this juncture of the crisis,  our future is in the hands of
those who are in roles of public and private sector responsibility or those
willing to assume such roles.  Our quality of life in the foreseeable future
will depend on the actions that are taken now to minimize the impacts that
the time bombs can be expected to have.

        Those who know how serious the situation is have tried to tell us  ~  from
Ed Yourdon and Ed Yardeni to the IEEE and the IEE.Those who
understand the threats and challenges have in effect yelled "Fire".   In our
overspecialized and complex world,  many of the most educated people
tend to be in a constant state of information overload.   Most of those in
roles of public responsibility seem to have failed to hear their explanations
and respond to the calls for action.   Those failing to hear and understand
have included the President and the head of the President's Council on
Year 2000 Conversion.

        It is little wonder that so many public officials have failed to hear the
warnings and have failed to grasp the full seriousness of the situation that
we are in.Normal psychological defense mechanisms of denial, wishful
thinking, and reluctance to act  have made our situation even more difficult.
Groupthink and other flawed approaches to decisionmaking have not
helped.

         Another reason that these warnings and calls to action have fallen on deaf
ears is the failure of our education system to help us become adequately
conversant with technology and with the complexities of the times in which
we live.  We have encouraged people to specialize and to learn alot about
one facit of the world.  Few people have an inclination by training or by
natural proclivity to try to comprehend how all the parts fit together.  Harlan
Cleveland underscored this problem in remarks he made at the George
Washington University Y2K Conference in July of this year.

        Another reason that our leaders do not seem to "get" Y2K is owing to
widespread illiteracy when it comes to technology.   Particularly in the US,
those who have no training in technology may actually have developed an
aversion to technology.  There aversion may be so great that they do not
have the patience to hear a twenty minute explanation of the embedded
systems problem, or, if they hear it, they are not able to understand the
implications of what they have heard.   Many have no time or patience to
consider, let along hear, an explanation concerning the seriousness of our
present situation.

        It is simply a fact of life that we have people in key roles of public
responsibility who neither respect nor understand what the experts have
been telling them.  They hardly have time to pay any attention at all.   Some
have repeatedly turned down offers to be briefed on the subject that they
need to understand if they are going to be able to begin to assess the
seriousness of our present situation.  They don't seem to have a clue
concerning the complexity of these matters and little apparent interest in
acquiring such understanding.   They do even have experts on staff who
understand.   They are not even in a position to make sound assessments
concerning the technical information that they do receive.

        Our future may be in the hands of those who understand the
seriousness of the situation that we are in.  It may turn on their ability and
efforts to educate those in key roles of responsibility to the seriousness of
this crisis.Our future may turn on the ability and efforts of such
individuals to awaken understanding in others and even assume major roles of
responsibility themselves.   Those who have insight regarding actions that
could be taken to help us get out of this incredible mess simply need to
come forward and do what can be done in the time remaining to address the
challenges before us.   This will likely be no less true in the days, months,
and years after the rollover as well.

        Public officials in key roles,  including the President, key members of
his administration and key members of Congress,  now seem with few
exceptions to be bereft of understanding and concern regarding the crisis
that we are in.  They seem disinclined almost to a person, to  assume a role
of real leadership.  A few in public office who showed signs of leadership
and statesmanship have at least temporarily gone into retreat.  Some are
even publicly disavowing the truth that had previously been so clear to them.
If these individuals do not wake up before the rollover,  they are apt to be so
distraught when they realize what they have allowed to happen, that they will
be of little help in putting things back together again.   It will very
likely be up to others of us to step forward and help clean up the mess that
they have allowed to happen. There will be no point or purpose for any recriminations
at that point. It will be too late. Nothing at all would be gained by it.
We must try to help them understand what the consequences of their failure to
act now means for the future.We must try in every way we know to
educate them and raise their level of awareness and understanding
concerning the situation and what can be done to minimize the impacts.   All
we can do is do the best that we can and help prod them to do the same ~
but it needs to be done now.
 

                                                     Epilogue

        Imagine yourself in a building in which there are numerous
smoldering fires.  All of the doors and windows are locked.   Several  people
in different parts of the building see the smoldering fires and begin to yell
"fire".  Alarms are triggered and the Fire Department is notified.  The Fire
Department, however, does not respond.  The Fire Department is otherwise
engaged.  It is busy conducting a public information campaign about the
need for hazard assessments.  It is also busy urging the public and the
private sector to develop contingency plans that would need to implement if
a fire were to breakout.

        The fact remains that smoldering fires have already broken out.  The
Fire Department is so busy that they don't respond.  The Fire Department
assumes that the urgent calls that they are receiving are coming from
people who are simply overreacting.  The Fire Department gives no
credence to the callers' urgent concerns.  The Fire Department assumes
that surely all these people could not be right.  Indeed, if they are right,
that building is about to go up in flames.  The Fire Department proceeds
with its other efforts and does not take time to investigate.

        If those sounding the alarm cannot get the attention of the Fire
Department, they will simply need to explore other options.   One option
would be to step in and form a volunteer fire department and try to do what
they can to keep the fires contained and put the fires out.   In so doing, they
might continue to hope that eventually the Fire Department wakes up before
it's too late and before losses become extensive.  They can continue to
hope that the Fire Department with all its firefighting resources, will
eventually assume its rightful role in not only spearheading firefighting
efforts, but in devoting its extraordinary resources to that end.

        When the head of the Fire Department realizes that the people who
tried to alert the Department to the fires were not misinformed, he and his
associates may well despair of the damage that they have allowed to occur.
Because they failed to act when first alerted to the problem,  the price tag
goes up for the costs that will have to be paid for repairs and restoration.

        In case of fire, one must do what one can to get the Fire Department
there in time, by alerting them to the problem, by in effect "yelling 'Fire'".
When the Fire Department fails to respond, one needs to have a contingency
plan ready to implement.The Fire Department is failing to respond.
 
 
 

************************************************************************************************
Copyright © 1999, Paula Gordon                                            Return to Paula Gordon's Y2K Web Page