The following questions were posed at the Y2K Information Forum on March 31, 1999.
Q: Which sub-committee is responsible for information about lab safety equipment, such as gas or flood alarms?
A: The UC Police Department is responsible for central alarms. Most alarms report centrally, and the UCPD has found that these will be ok. However, alarms that are local or specialized should be checked by departments along with other research equipment; they fall into the category of embedded systems. See Building Alarms and Access Controls for more information.
A: No, partly because vendors are constantly revising the status of Y2K compliance of their software. The Computers section of this Y2K web site presents a static list of the compliance status for a modest number of software packages in widespread use on the Berkeley campus, but also provides more general information about how to check the compliance status of these and other software packages. Vendor web sites are the best source of information for all other software. For operating systems, there are some checklists now on the site and more coming in late April and early May.
A: Yes, it should. The Spring 1998 problems at the plant have been identified and fixed, and the December 1998 capacity testing was successful. [The status as of mid-August 1999 is: The vendor that runs the plant has identified and modified all Y2K hardware and software problems. There are plans to test the plant systems by the end of September 1999.]
A: Some types have been ruled out because they don't contain internal clocks with date functions, but there is a wide range we can't be sure about due to the age of the equipment. Please see Departmental Research Equipment for further discussion.
A: IST has been working on central hardware systems for four years, and anticipates completing its work on software systems by July 1999. The Berkeley Financial System (BFS) has eliminated a whole area of concern because it is Y2K compliant. For more information about central systems, see Campus Systems.
A: Yes. Where vendors are not delivering on promises, the University has the responsibility to assist departments.
A: There will probably be some form of reporting implemented because there is a considerable amount of interest in this outside the University. The State Auditor issued a report in early 1999, criticizing the lack of oversight of this issue, and the Regents are concerned about overall Y2K compliance. Because the campus is subject to external scrutiny, and because reporting is one way to help make sure that departments are working in good faith to comply, we will need evidence that we are working in good faith to comply, reporting probably will be necessary.
A: There hasn't been a compilation of total costs to date, although IST has estimated that its costs are close to $1 million. Information regarding future Y2K costs was requested in the budget call that went to the Vice Chancellors, with a deadline of March 31st. A high level budget retreat is scheduled to take place in May, at which time it is expected that any large Y2K-related costs will be discussed. The general expectation is that expenses for campus systems will be handled centrally, and that departments will manage within their own budgets.
A: It's very hard to tell at this moment. Berkeley seems to have provided more information specifically to help departments. Centrally, it appears that the campus is in good shape. In general, the United States is way ahead with Y2K compliance compared to most other countries. This may pose problems if you have overseas suppliers.
A: There should be few or no serious problems. However, if you operate cash registers or handle credit card transactions in your department, this equipment should have your immediate attention. Departments won't be asked to report back in this category. See Administrative Equipment for more information.
A: There currently is no such protection. There 's an article in the most recent issue of ComputerWorld about congressional efforts to limit liability for Y2K problems. At least one of the bills calls for a 90-day "cooling off" period before litigation can begin, and places limits on personal liability of corporate officers and directors, and places limits on punitive damages. Also, there is a law (passed last year) that companies are not liable for Y2K information they issue unless it can be proven that the company was not acting in good faith when it put out that information. Overall, regarding vendor liability for Y2K-related damages, since most of the damages haven't occurred yet, it is difficult to predict how court decisions will go.
A: See Administrative Equipment. Copiers won't stop working, but if you have an accounting function in place (for example, for recharge purposes), you should definitely check that component.
A: Yes. Customized applications are where Y2K problems are likely to show up earlier because most applications look forward in time and are often used for forecasting. For example, for the campus admissions system, the class of 2000 was admitted several months ago, so that part of the system had to be modified to handle that date quite a while ago.
A: To determine which systems are mission critical, you can ask the question, "What will the impact be on the department if the system stops working or stops producing reliable information?" An accounting shadow system, for example, might be mission critical if it is used on a daily basis for fund control. However, it might not be mission-critical if all it does is produce more detailed reports than the regular campus general ledger system. Any system upon which a department has built numerous or important procedures could well be mission-critical.