Counting down to the big bang

By CHRIS BARTON

The Y2K problem, the electronic century date change, the millennium bug, a year 2000 conspiracy. Whatever the name, this phenomenon has to go down as the folly of the century.

Blame the computer industry. The incredible story began in the 1950-60s when software programmers happened on the bright idea of saving on memory space - at the time an expensive commodity - by representing the century date in a two-digit format (eg, 23/09/55). They figured by the time the new century arrived, the old computers would have been chucked out, memory would be a lot cheaper and a four-digit date representation to accommodate the new century - so 00 would mean 2000 and not 1900 - would have been introduced.

Unfortunately, their logic did not account for human stupidity. The two-digit convention continued. The problem spread from the large mainframes to minicomputers to PCs and even into date-aware computer chips inside electronic appliances and used to control all manner of machinery. Big mistake.

That is why - despite the protestations of pedantic programmers - people call it the millennium bug. Strictly speaking a bug is a mistake in a line of programming code that causes a malfunction. Programmers argue - and indeed, so does our Inland Revenue Department to limit bug-fix expenses claims - that the electronic century date change problem was planned. It was not a bug, it was deliberate. But there was nothing deliberate about how the planned "design fault" perpetuated. That was just plain dumb.

Ten days out from the millennium, the consensus is that New Zealand, the first country in the world to watch electronic dates roll over to 2000, has banished most of its bugs. A mood of quiet optimism pervades the nation.

So, what will happen on the night? The big question. Despite all the Y2K preparations, no one can say for sure that everything is fixed. That means we have to expect some computer systems and equipment controlled by date-aware chips to fail because of date-reading problems.

But quite what impact that will have is hard to gauge. For some systems, interpreting "00" as 1900 has little effect. For others, it means time has gone backwards - a situation that does not compute. Wrong dates can corrupt data and crash systems, but sometimes they just give an error message which can be corrected by restarting the computer.

Some sectors - mainly the utility services - claim to be better prepared than most.

Thus many of the problems are likely to occur in business and administrative systems rather than in essential services - leading to glitches in systems such as billing software, databases and perhaps building access security. It also means some problems will not show up until around January 5, when businesses return after the holiday period.

Despite the major work done by organisations to avoid Y2K problems, the commission doesn't rule out "localised and of short duration" interruptions to essential services.

Precise information about exactly what has been done, how much it cost, and of the quality of the Y2K remediation work carried out is hard to get.

Generally businesses are coy about giving out detailed Y2K information for fear of being sued, and because it is embarrassing to admit you had to replace an expensive system because it cannot read dates.

Companies that carry out independent audits of Y2K work do not want to be named or their information made public, because if something does go wrong they are going to carry the can. The result is, hardly any audited Y2K reports from state sector, local body organisations and large businesses have been made public.

Another reason is that unlike other countries such as the United States and Australia, New Zealand - in keeping with the economic policy of the previous Government - took a hands-off role in Y2K compliance. That meant almost all reporting of Y2K readiness progress was voluntary - the argument being that market forces and good business sense would take care of the problem.

The main source of information about the nation's Y2K preparations comes from five surveys carried out by the Y2K Readiness Commission every two months since February. It provides a good overall picture of readiness, but this was provided on a voluntary basis. We do not know which organisations were being surveyed, nor the extent and type of problems still to be fixed. We do know that hundreds of organisations declined to participate in each survey.

If things go wrong will people sue?

Absolutely. If businesses and the public suffer loss caused by Y2K failures to essential services like electricity, water, telecommunications and banking no one is going to be understanding. After all, this problem has been foretold for some time. Insurance companies have made it quite clear with electronic date change exclusion clauses that Y2K disasters are not covered in their policies, so if financial loss occurs, someone must pay.

There is however an out-clause resulting from the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill introduced in March. The "Good Samaritan" legislation means if companies and organisations make, in good faith, Y2K compliance statements relating to their products or their businesses, then their liability may be lessened. The Act has generated a pile of wishy-washy statements - mostly with little substance - about Y2K preparations and vague definitions about compliance. In the end legal arguments will come down to whether the company acted in good faith - and whether they disclosed everything they knew at the time. Sometime in 2000, court action may mean the public gets to see just how comprehensive some Y2K plans actually were.

By far the greatest mystery of the Y2K bug has to be how the computer software and hardware manufacturers have got off largely scot-free. While some vendors have had to provide free upgrades, most have ended up getting well paid for fixing the very mistake they perpetuated.

The Y2K issue may have been hyped up, but this was necessary. If the media had downplayed the bug, it is likely much less Y2K fixing would have been done. Compared with some other developed countries New Zealand was late to mobilise on beating the bug. But thanks to its small size and relatively integrated utility services sector, it has moved rapidly. There is no doubt the media played a big role in generating public awareness of the impending problem - creating pressure that helped convince Jenny Shipley's government to appoint a Y2K Readiness Commission in September 1998.

In case anyone still thinks the Y2K problem is a fiction, look at the readiness surveys. Nearly every sector reports they have already been hit by the bug.

Back in 1997 Coopers & Lybrand boldly estimated the bug would cost the country between $250 million and $450 million. No one has bothered to add up the cost since. But by way of comparison, the Australian Government and private sector businesses spent some $A12 billion preparing for Y2K, with the private sector accounting for $10 billion of that total, according to a Dow Jones report.

If you're still not convinced ask the thousands of staff either working on the night or on call - all because of a two-digit date problem. It's hardly the ideal way to be celebrating a millennium.