How would you like to be one of the people quoted on the top failed prediction lists, like the "Top 87 Bad Predictions about the Future" or the "Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions"? Do you think Ken Olson is being consulted about the future of computing? (Ken's famous prediction: "there is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home").
This brings up an interesting question: will a failed prediction impact your career, or the reputation of your company? But I digress... back to the assignment:
I think Y2K is a good example of a failed prediction for analysis because: 1) it was recent; 2) it was related to the pervasive use of computer technology; and 3) there was world-wide awareness of this doomsday prediction. I remember people pulling money from banks based on the fear that the Y2K crisis would cripple our economy. The company I was working for at the time set up a 24-hour support service in anticipation of system crashes and frantic customer calls. We didn't have a single problem.
The world survived. There was no crisis.
In my next posts, I'll provide more insights into this failed prediction.
Posts
AI Art and GenAI for Prompt Engineering and Education
-
Joyce Bettencourt and I presented on AI art, creativity, and GenAI use for
prompt engineering at the Museum of Contemporary Art at CDS in Second Life.
Th...
1 month ago
7 comments:
This is an insightful post on a topic I had considered discussing as well.
My problem was that I couldn't decide whether this qualified as a failed prediction or not. The doom and gloom of Y2K was never seen, but was that a result of bad predictions, or of the billions of dollars poured into preventing the catastrophe? Does it still count as a failed prediction if we proactively act to prevent it? If so, did our preventative actions really mitigate it, or would it not have occurred in any event?
Just thinking out loud here....
Good questions. There did seem to be an element of market-driven, self-fulfilling prophecy... but there were plenty of computer experrts that predicted a disaster.
I don't think the predictions actually prevented the failures, since I don't think the entire world of software was rewritten. In fact, I know many companies just held their breath (instead of making major investments in rewrites of legacy code). I think it was just a bad prediction.
Excellent points Terry, the Y2K saga was more of a precaution mixed a healthy dose of fear to get people (businesses/organizations) to get their act together. While were were some real concerns i.e. time issues,potential communications miss-match etc., the type of data/information that was necessary to understand the magnitude of the the problem in the first place. Albeit, it is good to embrace well accepted business practices, its unfortunate when predictions create the types of stresses that as Y2K did.
Regards,
Howard.
Terry
I can agree that the whole Y2k was a bust as I too was on call and I predicted that there would be no major impact to the systems that I was supporting. But my prediction was based upon the woork that was accomplished in the year prior to the roll over. I feee htat htis is a major contributo as to why there were no impacts. So the futurists that predicted there would be problem in fact prompted its fix so the prediction did hae some merit.
Yes, I agree that the predictions led some companies to perform some work that avoided some problems, but this was the exception not the norm. In many cases, the roll-over was just not an issue.
Obviously the world's legacy software base wasn't rewritten, and the predicted doomsday didn't occur -- despite the fact that by 2000 the world was highly dependent on computer systems.
In many respects the prediction failed because we had time to fix the perceived problem. I remember we had 10 people working 40 hours a week to update the existing computer code for our applications, so we would not have to Y2K event. There were many patches released for the individual workstation to fix any code not Y2K compliant. In essence a lot of work went into this to make it a non-event.
Do you believe that the preventive measures that some of the world's companies performed was the reason why we did not experience the catastrophic crisis predicted (i.e. "the end of the world as we know it")?
There were obviously cases where preventive measures avoided some problems, similar to your example. But I agree with many other people who believe that the Y2K crisis was horribly exaggerated. For example, Larry Seltzer (eWeek.com security center editor) made the following comments in his article "Some Perspective 5 Years After Y2k":
"You certainly couldn't justify all the money spent on the straightforward merits. Did all that remediation actually solve serious Y2K problems? If it did, why didnt the problems manifest themselves in serious ways in the unremediated third world? Either the problems were less frequent or less malignant than advertised. In either case, some famous consultants misled their clients."
"What we all should have argued for at the time was perspective: A focus on worst-case planning is usually unwarranted. Those who argue for it hysterically and who belittle those who oppose them arent serving anyones interests well. Ironically it also taught us the exact opposite lesson that the extremists were telling: Far from being vulnerable because of their interconnectedness, our systems are robust because of their redundancy and interconnectedness."
Reference: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Some-Perspective-5-Years-After-Y2K/
Post a Comment