So, what was the issue that caused all this panic at the turn of the century? Programmers in the late 1900s were trying to be efficient. Since memory was expensive, programmers would format years with only two digits instead of four. So, the year 1999 would be represented as “99.” But as the year 2000 approached, more and more people realized that this discrepancy could cause issues with their computers. When the year 2000 came around and was inevitably notated as “00,” computers would assume it represented the year 1900. Though this may not seem like a big issue, many computer systems used dates to perform important calculations. The wrong date would lead to incorrect results, which could lead to computer crashes. And if those computers had important operating functions like, for example, monitoring nuclear plant operations, the failure of those computers could have huge consequences.
In 1998, the Massachusetts Department of the State Auditor released a report on the preparedness of Massachusetts to address Y2K. In that report, A. Joseph DeNucci, the State Auditor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, described the potential consequences of Y2K in Massachusetts:
“The dimensions of the year 2000 problem for the Commonwealth are enormous. Practically every single automated system and its related technology, regardless of size, is impacted. Given our heavy reliance on computer systems, their failure to operate properly could mean anything from minor inconveniences to major problems. Virtually all citizens and businesses in the Commonwealth would be affected should state systems supporting our ability to collect revenue, pay bills, provide benefits, and support health, safety, and educational services be adversely impacted by the year 2000 problem.” (Department of the State Auditor, 1998)
The Department of the State Auditor’s report surveyed the Commonwealth’s preparedness for Y2K in order to promote awareness of the issue and address areas of deficiencies. The survey found that many entities in the Commonwealth had not established adequate plans for Y2K preparation. By October 10, 1997, only 3% of agencies has plans for Y2K, 3% of agency systems were compliant with year 2000 preparedness, and a whopping 95% were not compliant and had no plans (Department of the State Auditor, 1998, p. 12). This lack of preparedness was largely due to the widespread confusion surrounding the event. Some weren’t aware of the potential consequences, some were holding out for an easy fix to be developed, some didn’t realize it was their responsibility to address the problem, and many were intimidated by the scale of the problem.
The report discusses measures that had already been taken to ensure Y2K compliance. The Commonwealth’s primary accounting system was retrofitted at a cost of $2 million and its personnel and payroll system cost $5 million to overhaul (Department of the State Auditor, 1998, p. 11). And, though the numbers were not precise when the report came out, cost estimates for the Commonwealth’s most important systems totaled between $50 and $70 million (Department of the State Auditor, 1998, p. 24). From these numbers, it is easy to sympathize with those who were intimidated by Y2K compliance.
To help raise awareness and support planning for Y2K issues, the Administration and Finance Department’s Information and Technology Division (ITD) stepped into a role of responsibility. At the time of the report, ITD had “established a Year 2000 Program Management Office, formed a state-wide year 2000 users group, hosted awareness programs, established a year 2000 web page, and conducted seminars and workshops to promote best practices for addressing year 2000 compliance” (Department of the State Auditor, 1998, p. 12).
Though this report is only the beginning of Massachusetts’ fight to prevent a Y2K disaster, it provides valuable and intriguing insight into the government processes that eventually saved us from widespread technical failure. If you want to learn more, there are many more government documents in our collection that go into further detail about how Massachusetts tackled the Y2K issue.
Emily Colson
Government Documents Intern
Sources:
- Chandrasekaran, R. (1999, March 6). "Big glitch at nuclear plant shows perils of Y2K tests." The Washington Post.
- Department of the State Auditor. 1998. Report on the preparedness of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to address the year 2000 computer date issue.
