STUART UMPLEBY INTERVIEWED BY YAGMUR DENIZHAN

INDUSTRY AND AUTOMATION, SUMMER 1999

The following interview was published in the Turkish journal, Industry and Automation. The interviewer is Yagmur Denizhan, associate professor of electrical engineering in Bogazici University in Istanbul. The person interviewed is Stuart Umpleby, Professor of Management Science at The George Washington University in Washington, DC.

How and when did you start your activities related to y2k? Could you describe how you became convinced of the seriousness of the problem?

I became aware of y2k as a current issue when I read the June 2, 1997, Newsweek cover story, "The day the world crashes." My first thought, when I saw the title, was, "Another scare story." But it sounded interesting, so I read it. As I read it, I thought, "Oh, dear, they didn't fix it." In the first course I took in computer programming in the 1960s the instructor told us. "Abbreviate the year to two digits. That will not work in the year 2000, but this is just a classroom example, so go ahead." Subsequently using two digits became a convention.

The article, I thought, was misleading. It described what could happen (worst case) and then described what probably would happen (mild disruptions) for several sectors -- communications, transportation, banking, etc. The article did not explain how society would move from the worst case to the mild case. Indeed the article concluded, "There are two kinds of people. Those who are not working on it and are not worried and those who are working on it and are terrified." I decided I wanted to know more. I looked at the websites listed, and the more I read, the more concerned I became. I went to my Dean and to my colleagues in management science to express my concerns and to ask their opinions. Nothing they said reassured me. By the end of 1997 I had decided to postpone the other projects I was then working on and to work on y2k full-time. This was easy to do since I teach systems science. I had come to regard y2k as a superb problem for systems analysis.

Let me express my appreciation for your decision.

I might add that in the fall of 1997 I began attending the meetings of the Washington, DC, Y2K group -- a group of people working on the problem in Washington area organizations -- the Pentagon, the World Bank, local banks, etc. These were remarkable meetings. People were much more pessimistic off the record than on the record. They said their management people did not understand the problem, were not giving them adequate resources, were living in dream worlds. These statements did not lay to rest my concerns.

 How would you evaluate the work done (by the government, companies, communities, etc.) since then? How would you compare these developments to the expectations you had at the beginning? Are you more optimistic or pessimistic by now?

I and others are more pessimistic. See www.russkelly.com/experts.html. The reason I am more pessimistic is that work has not proceeded as fast as I thought it would. I thought people would learn about the problem and take the necessary steps. My guess was that due to the lateness of the hour, many organizations would not finish in time. Hence, there would be significant disruptions.

However, organizations were slower to start than I expected, and many have not started even now. The level of psychological denial is just remarkable. People do not want to think about the subject, so they do not. They do not approach it as a problem to be solved, or at least coped with by making contingency plans. People are believing what they choose to believe -- that there will be few effects, or that other people will be more affected than they, either because WE have few computers or because WE got started earlier.

When did people start becoming aware of the fact that also embedded chips are going to be affected?

I believe the vulnerability of embedded systems was recognized sometime in 1997. It came along during the time I was learning about it, so it is hard for me to distinguish just when the subject was raised. I would say mid 1997.

One reason why embedded systems were not recognized earlier is that the problem was assigned to the IT staff of organizations (computers and software). But these people are not responsible for buildings and production lines, which is where most of the embedded systems are.

Recently you have been visiting several European countries. Could you tell us about your activities during the journey and the impressions you have with respect to y2k preparedness in those countries?

My impression is that Europe is at least a year behind the US in general awareness about y2k. Most people know very little about it. If they have heard about it, they think it is a technical problem that technical people will solve. Most people think it is not a serious problem. Even now they think they can postpone action until the fall of 1999. I saw no community organizing in Europe. In contrast in the US many communities have been organizing. They ask their elected officials, power company executives, etc. to explain what they are doing re y2k. These local groups have formed into coalitions (www.coalition2000.org) to share information. Now even the President's Council on y2k Conversion (www.y2k.gov/community) is organizing "community conversations" across the country to encourage local communities to prepare. It is obvious that emergency management services will not be able to cope with all disruptions. Natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes) are always local. The rest of the country is unaffected and can send relief supplies. Y2k will be global. Governments will probably be primarily concerned with critical systems. Local communities will have to take care of themselves.

Another concern is water supplies. Usually local governments are in charge of water purification plants and sewage treatment plants. But many local governments in the US have not started working on the problem. They will not be finished in time.

The situation is worse overseas. Even some national governments are not well organized. The local level seems always to be behind the national level.

Can you give a rough estimation about which countries or parts of the world will be affected in which manner in your opinion?

My opinions are based on the reports by the Gartner Group, the World Bank, and the US State Department. All have made surveys. All are pessimistic. There are several dangers:

1. Launch of nuclear weapons. This might happen if the early warning screens go blank and some country thinks it is under attack. The Pentagon has been working with the Russian government to be sure this does not happen.

2. Spills from chemical plants, refineries, nuclear reactors, gas pipelines, etc. These plants usually have many embedded systems. They need to be thoroughly checked and, if not proven to be safe, I think they should be shut down. One of my great worries is that the level of public understanding is so low, I am not sure that a government will have public support for taking this rather drastic action. I and others thought that by this time the environmental movement would be making lots of noise about y2k. They seem to be just beginning to be aware of the issue. I am not sure there is now time for them to learn, to organize, and to act.

3. Urban apartment buildings. If utilities cease to function, it seems to me than many urban apartment buildings will become uninhabitable. If one loses power for several days in the north in January, the pipes freeze. If the pipes freeze, one has no water. When the pipes thaw, one has water damage and the water cannot be turned on again until the pipes are repaired. If damage is widespread, repairs could take a very long time. Hence, disruptions of only a few days or weeks, could have effects lasting months or years.

4. Employment. Major manufacturers such as General Motors have thousands of suppliers. Those suppliers also have suppliers. And those suppliers in turn have suppliers. It seems to me that it is reasonable to expect that there will be high levels of unemployment in the spring of 2000.

5. Governments. If government computer systems are not ready, many governments will not be able to collect taxes or make payments. People will not receive salary checks, pension benefits, medical benefits, welfare benefits, payments for services rendered to governments, etc. If governments are not able to function, I suspect that there may be radical decentralization of authority, somewhat like what the USSR experienced recently.

6. One can imagine disruption of medical supplies and food supplies. Certainly international trade will be affected. Tourism will be affected.

I have the general impression that the "connectedness" property of the problem is being widely underestimated. Could you comment on this issue?

Yes, I quite agree. People tend to think that there may be an error in their telephone bill, or they will have to buy some new software for their PC. These people do not understand the threat of embedded systems to utility services, and they do not understand the interdependencies of modern societies.

1. One issue is data exchange. Many computers exchange data, certainly in international banking. If one computer on a network is not ready, it might corrupt the data in the other computers that are ready.

2. There have been reports that 80% of pharmaceutical products sold in the US have at least some foreign component. If trade is disrupted, medicines may be in short supply.

3. The US imports over 50% of its petroleum. Much of the petroleum comes from countries that are far behind in their y2k programs. The oil shocks of the 1970s were caused by only a 5% drop in production.

International trade requires international phone calls, banking transactions, and shipping. Shipping is one sector that is far behind. Ports tend to be quite automated, at least major international ports.

In Turkey many people rely on the fact that the level of automation is not that high and that people are anyway used to disruptions. Most of them do not know about the problems of the natural gas suppliers in Russia, where we take our gas from. Do you have any information or examples about what could happen in developing countries?

Yes, many people in less developed countries think they will not be greatly affected since they use fewer computers. My reply is that every major city in the world now uses telephones, electricity, and petroleum. All are vulnerable to y2k problems. It is true that people in some countries are accustomed to a lower level of service than are Americans. This certainly will help. Because systems in some countries are unreliable, people have back-up systems or procedures in place. Also, they may not have discarded the previous systems. For example, in Europe there are more wood stoves and self-sufficient farms than in the US.

I am very concerned about large cities. Modern cities were made possible by water purification and sewage treatment plants. Water systems depend on electricity and telecommunications. If water systems fail, I think that many people will have to leave the cities. I think that people should think now about where they want to be on New Year's eve. I recommend visiting a relative or friend who lives on a farm, in a small town, or at least in a suburb. I suggest preparing this location now in case you have to stay there for a period of weeks, perhaps even a few months. If the disruptions are large, it will be hard to obtain the parts needed to repair equipment. This will prolong the period of disruption.

Since you are extensively working on this issue and contacting many people, I would like you to comment on their attitude and psychological response. Could you give some categories of different types of responses? Do they have any correlation to the age, gender, nationality, education, position etc. of the person under consideration?

This topic is widely commented upon by those interested in the issue. Gender is an interesting factor. Many men say their wives do not want to hear about it. They find it depressing or anxiety promoting, but usually women come around when they realize they need to think about the children. On the other hand, in work places, women are often the leaders on y2k. Men seem to avoid the issue on the grounds that working on y2k is not "career enhancing." If you succeed, no one notices. If you fail, everyone knows. For whatever reason many y2k project leaders are women. Perhaps no one else wanted to take the job, and they saw it as an advancement opportunity. Also, women have personal skills that are needed. They are often better at working with people. They tend to provide more encouragement, and perhaps they can cope better with other people’s anxieties.

It is very interesting what you say about the dependence of the response on gender (within families). As a matter of fact, my limited observations have shown me just the reverse within the families in Turkey. Of course, I cannot claim that those I have observed are representative for the whole country, but this still indicates that there are also very strong behavioral differences from society to society.

In the US technical people tend to be men. In Russia, as one example, a higher percentage of engineers and doctors are women. So, yes, I am sure there are differences among societies.

Going back to the issue how various professions are responding, academics have not been much involved. In fact their absence is notable. Perhaps they are over-specialized.

Sally Strackbein, a local y2k activist, says there are "forest" people and "tree" people, from the saying, a person "cannot see the forest for the trees." Some people focus on details and miss the big picture. Y2k requires an ability to see the big picture. The number of people who think this way seems to be a minority of the population.

Bruce Webster (www.wdcy2k.org) has done surveys using a ten point scale where 0 means no perceptible impact and 10 means social collapse. I and others have found it useful to classify people on where they stand on the scale. Most people are around 1,2, or 3 meaning they think there will be little disruption. Some people are more concerned, around 6,7, or 8. People who are less concerned think that those who are more concerned are alarmists. People who are more concerned think those who are less concerned are uninformed.

Quite a few people say that y2k is similar to Elizabeth Kuebler-Ross's description in On Death and Dying. She says that when a person is told that he or she has a terminal illness, there are psychological stages one goes through -- denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. I think this model fits the y2k phenomenon as well in that one has to work through one's emotional response to y2k. It is a MAJOR disruption of expectations. There is a lot to think about (e.g., how technical systems work), a lot to worry about (e.g., family, friends, job, savings, water, food, fuel), and a lot of plans to make (e.g., just in case provisions). Y2k is a lot like buying insurance for one’s home or car. What is the danger? How do I prepare? What level of preparation makes you feel comfortable? What are the consequences of overpreparation? What are the consequences of underpreparation?

A lot of people just do not want to deal with it. Managers try to delegate it -- to IT staffs, to lawyers, to public relations departments, etc. The uncertainties are so great, they do not know how to respond. So, they focus attention on day to day tasks and hope for the best.

It seems to me that countries with a long tradition of citizen action will fare better than countries with a history of relying on central authority. In Britain, the US, Canada, Australia, etc. people tend to be skeptical of government. They prefer minimum government. They often distrust the government. And they are accustomed to organizing and lobbying at the local level. People in these countries do not wait for the government to act.

In Central European countries there is much less tendency for citizens to organize and act on their own. They wait for the government to solve such problems. But governments are not organized to deal with y2k. It falls between departmental boundaries. Everyone feels, "It is not my job." So very few people act. Also, the press does not know how to cover the issue. It is technical rather than political. How does one cover a hypothetical, future event? There are ways. One can compare what is happening in different countries. One can write articles about the results of recent surveys. But is the public interested? And will the public be interested if they are not told by leaders that the problem is significant and that they should make personal preparations?

In order to understand the problem, some experience with technology and with management is definitely a plus. Unless one has a sense of what is technically possible, of how long technical projects take, and the kinds of difficulties they encounter, one can easily trust the statements of business and government leaders that they have the situation under control.

It seems that if you consider the development of societies as an evolution within history, y2k will be their biggest fitness test.

Yes,I think we are approaching a "Darwinian extinction event" in terms of companies. That is, just as an asteroid apparently wiped out the dinosaurs, so y2k may mean the end of many companies. Some companies simply will not make it. Those most prepared and those that recover most quickly will take market share from those least prepared.

Is there any final message you would like to transmit to our readers?

I think we have covered the topic. I cannot think of any major omissions. Good luck to everyone in Turkey. Please share what you learn with others.