The year 2000--computer compliance : second report. Volume II, Minutes of evidence and appendices / Science and Technology Committee.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
- Date:
- 1998
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: The year 2000--computer compliance : second report. Volume II, Minutes of evidence and appendices / Science and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.
12/256 page 2
![19 November 1997 ] [ Continued 2.2 The best practice is to have the bulk of the job done by the end of 1998. There are good technical and business reasons for this. It is probable that any medium or large business that has not made an adequate start by 31 March 1998 will not make it—an “adequate start” means Board sponsorship, completion of a full systems audit, identification of all “mission critical” items (including third party interdependencies), a full budget and project team in place and conversion in hand. About 40,000 such businesses, employing around 6,000,000 people, risk not making such a start in time. (Smaller businesses may have rather longer.) Evidence for this comes, inter alia, from the following recent surveys. 2.3 A DTI/Sage/Taskforce 2000 survey indicates that less than 10 per cent of SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) have completed a full audit and 57 per cent plan no budget until 1999—yet half of those getting on with it say they expect the job to take 12-18 months. 80 per cent plan to resolve the matter “in house”—although 50 per cent have no people to allocate to it. 2.4 A Cap Gemini (Europe’s largest computer services company) survey indicates that: “One in ten organisations will fail to meet the deadline ... [and therefore] ... 29 per cent of GDP will be at risk.” If the timetable slips by three months, this becomes 37 per cent. On resources, they say demand will exceed supply by April 1998. The average time to resolve the problem is two years for medium-sized and two and a half for large businesses. 2.5 Therefore, failing significant change in understanding within the next few weeks, we could be facing unprecedented difficulties. 3. TASKFORCE 2000’s ROLE 3.1 Its first objective was “to operate at a high level to support an initial goal of achieving 100 per cent awareness and commitment by March 1997.” Basic awareness was achieved on time. However, understanding and, therefore, commitment have proved more difficult. 3.2 Funds are limited: only £300,000 of public money since July 1996, together with a DTI official on secondment since January (focusing on SMEs). Therefore, activities have been strictly focused: speaking at relevant conferences (three or four presentations per week—often more), getting close to the media (success with TV, radio, the technical and specialist press and the broadsheets) and meeting senior business managers, boards of directors and relevant professionals. More extensive PR activity has not been possible. 4. POSSIBLE FAILURES OF SAFETY CRITICAL SYSTEMS 4.1 The extent depends entirely on how soon people get on with fixing the problem. 4.2 Some organisations are making contingency plans. Indeed, that—and damage limitation—are recognised by active organisations (including the oil and gas and nuclear industries) as an essential part of their date-change programme. 5. IMPACT OF ACTION 2000 LAUNCH ON TASKFORCE 2000 WorK 5.1 This is difficult to judge at the time of writing. On the face of it, Action 2000 should be able to provide a valuable service—there is a need for central advice and assistance of the kind being planned. 5.2 However, the campaign is at a critical stage: if medium and larger businesses do not get started within the next few weeks, we face severe problems. Therefore, there must be no mixed messages and no confusion. And it is essential that the momentum created and maintained by Taskforce 2000 is not prejudiced. There are some indications that this might be happening. 5.3 Taskforce 2000 understands the issues, has a successful track record, influences the agenda and knows the key journalists. Also its name is established as a clear and positive brand in the UK and internationally. It would be unwise to jeopardise these advantages 6. Wuy 1s MorE NoT BEING DONE? 6.1 There is a vicious circle:’senior people do not have it on their agenda because other senior people do not have it on theirs. In particular, the matter would get far more attention if it were seen as a key Government priority at Cabinet level.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218692_0012.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
