NATIONAL CONFERENCE

ON THE CONVERSION OF THE I.T. SYSTEMS TO THE YEAR 2000

Transport and Telecommunications Sector

Strategies, work program and progress report

The Transport and Telecommunications Sector, established by the Government Executive Order of February 5, 1999 within the framework of the Study and Guidance Committee for the Conversion of the I.T. Systems to the Year 2000 ("Comitato Anno 2000") established by the Government Executive Order of December 14, 1998, is glad to present to the National Conference for the Conversion of the I.T. System to the Year 2000 the up-to-date results of its work, which is devoted to the implementation of the tasks entrusted to the Comitato by art. 2 of the latter mentioned Order, namely by sub-sections:

Our special thanks goes to the members of the Sector whom have provided precious information, analysis and insight on the issues, namely:

• Prof. Ing. Antocicco Sergio, of Confindustria and President of ANUIT
• Dr. Samoggia Giovanna, Ferrovie dello Stato 
• Dr. Prignano Giovanni, President of ASSONET-Confesercenti
• Dr. Massimiano Elvira, National Coordinator, ANAMA FIARC,

as well as to those whom have provided the necessary data and cooperation for the fulfilment of the Sector task, namely:

• Ing. Bendoni Massimo, CIO, Alitalia 
• Dr. Bergerone Riccardo, Process Director, TNT Global Express
• Dr. Biassoni Giuseppe, CIO, RAI
• Ing. Camia Riccardo, AD Postel
• Dr. Cardillo Francesco, Production Manager, ANSA
• Dr. Caruso Maria Pia, Communuication Authority
• Dr. Causin Gianfranco, Secretary, AISCAT
• Ing. Cifaldi Carmine, ENAC
• Dr. Curiale Salvatore, ASIG
• Dr. D'Aloja Pierluigi, ENAV
• Ing. De Iacovo Giancarlo, CIO, Telecom Italia
• Mrs De Paulis Elisabetta, Poste Italiane
• Dr. Filipponi Gianni, Secretary General, UNRAE
• Dr. Fabrizi Fabrizio, Secretary, General, ASSOAEROPORTI
• Ing. Gambino Vincenzo, Poste Italiane
• Ing. Gargiulo Aniello, Ministry of Transports
• Dr. Girometti Marina, TIM
• Dr. Giuffré Francesco, Technical Secretary, ANIE-Telecomunicazioni
• Dr. Guidotti Susanna, Società Autostrade
• Ing. Huscher Paolo, CIO, Omnitel
• Dr. Kraus Daniel, General Manager, ANIE
• Ing. Laganà Antonio, Ferrovie dello Stato
• Ing. Langher Giuseppe, CIO, Società Autostrade
• Ing. Riccardo Lippi, SITA
• Dr. Luzzati Piero Marco, General Manager, CONFETRA
• Lt. Col. Milillo Giuseppe Fausto, Commander, Gruppo Carabinieri Marina
• Dr. Mucci Vincenzo, Director, Marine Department, Ministry of Transports
• Dr. Paschina Donatella, Alitalia 
• Dr. Rampello Maria Luisa, Consultant, Ferrovie dello Stato 
• Dr. Santarelli Annarita, Ferrovie dello Stato
• Ing. Sattin Mario, FIAT 
• Dr. Stefanini Elisabetta, Omnitel
• Ing. Todisco Nicola, FIAT
• Ing. Travagliati Massimo, RAI
• Dr. Varallo Francesco, RAI
• Dr. Zazza Massimiliano, Ministry of Transports
• The Management of Concession Railways
• The Management of Special Administration Railways
• The Management of secondary highways and mountain tunnels
• The Coast Guard
• The Port Authorities
• The Port Management companies
• The Airport Administrations
• The Airport Management companies
• The Management of Transport and Supply-Chain companies

The Sector Coordinator 

(prof.ing. Augusto Leggio)

Rome, June 17, 1999

STRATEGY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE LEVEL

The Transport and Telecommunications Sector has adopted the assessment and awareness promotion strategy indicated below. The strategy takes into account the fact that, in each sub-sector under scrutiny, the population of the subjects being assessed is diverse and it is generally composed of:

1. a main operator which, as the heir of a natural legal monopoly, operates on a national level
2. a host of secondary operators which are interconnected with the main operator
3. a multitude of small operators, generally represented by professional associations
4. the supply chain
5. the sector ruling authorities

The Transport and Telecommunications Sector has adopted a different approach according to nature, organization and dimension of operators, namely:

Assessment, in cases as per a), b) and c) above has been carried out as follows:

I)     Preparation of a "first approach" questionnaire

II)   Plenary meeting with major operators, secondary operators (whenever their number allowed it) and professional associations to which the "first approach" questionnaire was handed over with request of compilation

III)  Reception of "first approach" questionnaire (still in progress)

IV)  Meetings with each major operator, main secondary operators and professional associations to discuss questionnaire, clarifications, corrections and missing data in order to hammer out "final questionnaires that would be sufficiently representative of the existing reality" within the largest possible spectrum of assessed subjects.

V)   Sending of a "second approach" questionnaire to each major operator and main secondary operator's CEOs/General Directors, specific for their line of business and based upon the "Action 2000" model in use in the U.K. for the millennium bug problem, in which was asked:

V.I)      Adaptation of form to domestic requirements

V.II)    Operator's typical business process flow

V.III)   Process dependency table from process external to operator's business

V.IV)  Table on possible impact due to operator's business typical process shut down

V.V)    Indication of ruling entity or international entities that oversee operator's business.

VI)     Reception of "second approach" questionnaire

VII)   Meetings with each major operator to discuss "second approach" questionnaire.

VIII)  Processing of poll results

IX)     Progress meetings on conversion process (September 1999)

Have been carried out through:

I)      Warning letters to major operator, professional association and ruling authorities's CEOs/General Directors

II)    Meetings with Year 2000 project managers and CIOs

III)  Seminars with major business member of professional associations, particularly supply-chain

For its assessment and awareness promotion activities, the Sector has referred to two existing standards:

D.1) State of readiness to the Year 2000, as specified by the Consulting Company Gartner Group

D.2) Definition of Year 2000 Conformity Requirements as specified by the British Standard Institution

They are reported below.

Level 0: the enterprise has yet to begin any activities for the conversion to the year 2000

Level 1: the enterprise has become aware of the problem, has defined the actions to be taken and has began taking a complete inventory of technology and business processes affected by the year 2000.

Level 2: the enterprise has carried out a complete and detailed assessment of business dependencies

Level 3: the enterprise has prepared executive projects, allocated financial and human resources, established dependency priorities, assessed risks and has achieved a 20% compliance of mission-critical systems

Level 4: the enterprise is working on the remaining 80% of its mission-critical systems

Definition: Year 2000 compliance shall mean that neither performance nor functionality is affected by dates prior to, during and after the year 2000.

Rule 1: No value for current date will cause any interruption in operation.

Rule 2: Date-based functionality must behave consistently for dates prior to, during and after the year 2000.

Rule 3: In all interfaces and data storage, the century, in any date, must be specified either explicitly or by unambiguous algorithms or inferencing rules.

Rule 4: Year 2000 must be recognized as a leap year.

Additional rules from standard PD DISC2000-1 are reported below.

Rule 1: General integrity: roll-over between all significant time (e.g. days, months, years, centuries) must be performed correctly. Moreover, current date means the day's date as it is known to the equipment or product.

Rule 2: Date integrity: all equipment and products must calculate, manipulate and represent dates correctly for the purpose for which they were intended. Moreover, functionality is to be intended to include both process and process results. No equipment or product shall use particular date values for special meanings (e.g. "00" to signify "not applicable" "/" "beginning of file" or "99" to signify "end of file". Finally, if desired, a reference point for date values and calculations may be added (as defined by the Gregorian Calendar).

Rule 3: Explicit-implicit century. Explicit century: if 4 digit or a century indicator are used, a reference should be inserted (e.g. ISO Standard 8601:1988 for a 4 digit year). However, certain exceptions must be allowed for domain specific standards (e.g. EDI, ATM, etc.) - Implicit century: if inferencing rules are used (e.g. a 2 digit year with a value greater than 50 implies 19xx, a 2 digit year with a value equal to or less than 50 implies 20xx) then the inference rule must be applied to all instances in which the date is used even though different inferencing rules may apply to different archives.

SUMMARY

As a consequence of our "pressing" action, a remarkable growth in awareness and comprehension has been recorded. Misunderstanding of the problem as a whole, particularly as concerns responsibilities, interdependencies and functional and administrative implications has sharply decreased since the beginning of the assessment. In some, non-essential instances, integration tests and contingency plans must be prepared within the remaining time.

From the presentations of the Transport and Telecommunication regulators and major operators, some general conclusions may be drawn which are reported below.

Major operators have developed year 2000 conversion projects and are currently preparing contingency plans (management of unexpected events and continuity of operation assurance). Such preparation is facilitated for those operators which, for the nature of their business, are used to handling risk and emergencies and have the necessary capabilities and organizational assets in place.

The higher the level of integration between the functions of the operator both internally and externally with other subjects whose cooperation is vital to achieve full conformity, the greater the risk.

Greatest care was paid to realiability of supply-chain by requesting S.C. representatives full product and service compliance. As a consequence, higher quality standards are now to be expected from suppliers.

Normally, contingency plans have been engineered to prevent service disruption and allow emergency handling within the painted scenario; while lower attention is being paid to the fact that cash-flow (which business economic-financial survival depends on) be equally assured. Operators (which rely upon medium-to-high complexity networks for service supply that must be guaranteed under any circumstances) have focused their attention on technical rather than administrative functionality. This may be observed from the very frequent use of the backdate technique which, while assuring equipment temporary technical functionality, it may (in the case of heavy business-equipment integration) create organizational and functional problems.

Moreover, as concerns contingency planning, great attention has been devoted to the preparation of "help desk" systems which, in more complex instances (such as those of global networks where Italy is present) provide progressive levels of attention in relation to risk progression. Indeed, we should rather be talking of "war-room" which are activated in relation to the magnitude of the problem. In such cases, possible failure detection and corrective action begins from the date line (from New Zealand onwards) so as to make it available to countries that come later to the date change any possible early experience. In these cases, as well as those of major relevance, all events are recorded by automatic or semi-automatic "logging" in order to gather information assets and make it readily available to users worldwide.

Lower attention, as previously mentioned, has been paid to secure cash-flow: one reason being the priority of technical functionality, while the other being probably the scarcity of all of the necessary resources (human, time, financial): however, conversion process and contingency planning must consider business survival and welfare in order to safeguard normal operation.

Contingency planning is being considered as a vital necessity to which to devote remaining time and efforts, albeit in some cases, testing and implementation (especially of integrated systems) shall have to be completed within the same time period.

Major operators (which normally control most of the sector business) are fairly ahead with conversion progress while as concerns contingency planning they feel the need of a national contingency plan under Government emergency authorities supervision that could use "help desk" and "war room" systems.

All participants have stressed the necessity of close cooperation among customers, suppliers and public administration for smooth and complete solution of the problems and avoid any possible litigation that are widely regarded as inappropriate and practically vain.

In general, the presentations have shown widespread awareness and advanced work progress as well as appropriate problem management. Nonetheless, we should not forget that the presentations within the work session were those of major operators, generally operating in a stimulating competitive environment (sometimes global), that are often part of international and multinational circuits that could benefit from the "pressing" action by authorities or global organizations. Small enterprises could be sailing in more troubled waters indeed, as they may not access information as readily nor do they operate in such advanced organizational and technological environment marketwise.

To summarize, major operators must complete integrated testing and implementation as well as develop cooperative contingency plans, while small operators are still lagging behind as regards awareness and conversion work. Such results, while reassuring upon the vital functionality of the nation systems, suggest that information and guidance activities towards small enterprises must be pursued with determination.

SUB-SECTOR SPECIFIC RESULTS

Below are the poll results whose significance, however, is affected by limited respondent turn out. The data show compliance level of single subjects regardless of size, relevance and geographical coverage.

In general, a limited grouping of subjects can be seen about the conversion initial phases and a more substantial grouping about the final phases, as subjects belong to different economical, organizational, industrial and technical levels: a small number of subjects still lag behind in the conversion process while the majority seem positioned in a substantially fair position. The remaining work should therefore be focused onto bringing the totality of the subject to satisfactory compliance level. The results for each sector are summarized below.

1.1 RAILWAY: Sector of medium-high complexity, highly integrated, being widely re-structured due to privatization, exposed to Y2K, heavy environmental impact in case of disruption. Well prepared for risk and emergency management.

Assessment nearly completed, conversion in progress or started in most cases, upgrading to be improved. Situation fairly satisfactory for many operators while unsatisfactory for others, mainly regional, requiring however further evaluation. Strong recovery capacity. Supply-chain in good shape.

1.2 HIGHWAY: Sector of medium-low complexity, medium integration level, characterized by decentralization policies, relatively less exposed than others to Y2K, heavy environmental impact in case of disruption. Experience in risk and emergency handling.

assessment nearing completion, conversion started or in progress. Situation satisfactory with exception of some regional operators.

1.3 ROAD AND MULTIMODE: Sector of medium complexity, widepread, characterized by market changes, relatively less exposed that others to Y2K. Heavy environmental impact in case of disruption. Assessment nearing completion, conversion completed in many cases. Situation varies, needs improving in some instances.

1.4 AIR: Highly complex, highly integrated Sector, undergoing re-structuring due to deregulation and privatization, high Y2K exposure, heavy environmental impact in case of disruption. Experience in risk and emergency management.

Assessment in progress, conversion progress fairly ahead for airline and airport service; assessment started for air traffic control. Conversion progress satisfactory. Supply-chain in excellent shape. Situation requires further evaluation for cases yet to be reviewed.

1.5 MARINE: Sector of medium complexity, widespread, sufficiently stable, relatively less exposed that others to Y2K. Experience in risk and emergency management.

Assessment nearly completed for port autority and started for port operators.

2.1 TLC (TELEPHONE, DATA COMMUNICATION AND OTHER SERVICES): Highly

complex, highly integrated Sector, undergoing restructuring and under intense deregulation and globalization turbulence, high Y2K exposure, affects all other sectors. Heavy investments in Information Communication Technology. Experience in risk and emergency management. Highest committment of operators, particularly towards base services. Assessment in progress, conversion in progress, upgrading ahead.

Supply-chain in very good shape. In-depth assessment in progress as regards service complexity, interconnectivity and number.

2.2 BROADCASTING (TELEVISION AND RADIO): Sector of medium complexity, sufficiently stable (digital "revolution" has yet to materialize, few deregulation and globalization instances), relatively little Y2K exposure, especially with regard to broadcasting. Assessment in progress, conversion in progress, upgrading satisfactory. Situation generally satisfactory for major operators. Polling difficulties as small operators are difficult to reach. Supply-chain very good.

2.3 MAIL (MAIL AND PARCEL DELIVERY, BANCOPOSTA, TELEGRAPH, TELEX AND ELECTRONIC MAIL): Sector of medium complexity, low integration, mature as concerns delivery, relatively little Y2K exposure except for Bancoposta, e-mail, telegram and telex (the latter having legal relevance). Assessment in progress, conversion in progress, upgrading fairly satisfactory. In-depth assessment in progress in sensitive sub-sectors.

2.4 PRESS: Sector of medium complexity, medium integration, sufficiently stable, relatively little Y2K exposure. Assessment in progress, conversion in progress, upgrading highly satisfactory in some cases, to be improved in a few others.