In view of off-List contacts following my contribution on the possible
response of museums to computer hardware and software problems I thought
that it might be useful if I extended the discussion into museum
management issues that do not primarily involve the museum's computers and
their software. (Please don't ask for re-postings: look them up in the
MUSEUM-L archive: http://home.dc.lsoft.com/archives/museum-l.html)

Much the most difficult areas of potential problems (or worse) to predict
(and therefore of particular concern) are microchips that are not year 2000
compliant, but which are embedded (often literally, and hence inaccessible)
within a whole variety of pieces of equipment, and the risk of failure in
the critical systems of some outside supplier or contractor.

The latest estimate is that there are now in excess of twenty BILLION such
microchips installed (and often physically embedded and not readily
accessible) in just about every modern control system or piece of
electronic equipment.  If the chip can't cope with Year 2000 then the
system or equipment may either fail completely or begin to function in an
unpredictable way.

Typical examples of such microchip-controlled systems and equipment in
museums include security and safety detectors and control systems, air
conditioning plant and controls, passenger and goods lifts (sorry -
elevators to our American friends!), internal telephone and paging systems,
fax and voicemail equipment, much modern conservation laboratory and
design/display studio and workshop equipment, any domestic appliance with
timer controls (such as dishwashers and microwaves) and business equipment
such as museum shop and restaurant cash registers.

So far as the outside supplier or contractor issue is concerned, critical
systems include the museum's electrical power, gas and water supply,
telephones and other telecommunications (including private circuit computer
lines), and all aspects of the operations of every contractor or franchisee
undertaking key functions for the museum, including catering, retailing and
security.

In principle at least contractors and utilities should be fully responsible
for their own Year 2000 preparations and for continuing to provide a proper
service in accordance with their written and implied contracts.  Certainly
in Britain the statutory Regulators of public utilities, Auditors, and even
the Stock Exchange, are beginning to require assurances over their Year
2000 preparations.

However, if there is a serious failure in any critical system due to Year
2000 problems on 1 January 2000 (e.g. of the power supply - with perhaps a
sub-zero temperature outside), the fact that the liability rests with
someone else is not going to be much consolation.  Consequently, whoever
may be legally liable the museum itself is going to have as good and
emergency response as possible to both minimise the risk and to manage any
major incidents or problems resulting from the failure of others as well as
any problems down to the museum itself directly.

Further, within the last few days news has begun to emerge about the
attitude of the insurance industry on both direct Year 2000 problem losses,
and on public and other third-party liability insurances.  Two of the
largest European insurance companies have already publicly refused cover for
any Year 2000 problems or claims.  The reported grounds are (1) that the
potential losses are not measurable (and potentially so great) that it is
impossible for insurers to quantify the risk and set a premium for it and
(2) Year 2000 problems and losses, if they occur, could not be classified
as accidental and hence insurable as they should have been foreseen and
properly managed in advance.  (It is understood that a further factor is
that the re-insurance industry, having been decimated by disasters such as
asbestos and now tobacco claims made decades after the insured event, is
similarly refusing to offer the usual reinsurance cover in respect of the
mainstream insurance companies'  catastrophic risks.)

Consequently, if a Year 2000 problem caused by a key supplier or contractor
costs the museum tens of thousands (or worse) there may be no public
liability or product liability insurance, and the contractor may simply
chose to go bust.  The Museum itself MUST therefore have carried out
assessments of the risks and prepared its own contingency plans.  (As I
previously reported the British regulatory body for charitable
organisations, the Charity Commission, has already warned that Trustees
may be personally liable for any financial cost or loss to the charity due
to inadequate response to, or preparation for, the Year 2000 problem.

Within Europe we have in fact had some experience of taking appropriate
practical steps in the face of a parallel issue, though on a far smaller
scale.  Following a European Community-wide crackdown on workplace hazards,
in the mid 1980s the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH)
Regulations were introduced, covering every employer, whether private
sector, public body or non-profit.  The basic principle was simple: the
employers had to satisfy themselves that all "substances" used in the
course of work were either inherently safe, or were properly controlled,
handled and used safely if they were potentially hazardous, with effective
and accurate long-term records being kept about all such materials used and
the potential exposure of individual workers to each.

In a typical museum some hundreds of "substances" covered by the new COSHH
Regulations were in found to be in use.  These ranged from the more obvious
ones such as the whole range of chemicals and adhesives etc. found in the
conservation labs, design studios and technical workshops, cleaning
materials and disinfectants, and even common office materials, such as
solvent-based typewriter correcting fluids and photocopier toner powders.
However, the new safety law did not mean that every employer had to carry
out laboratory toxicology tests or assessments for themselves: both the
original manufacturers and any intermediate suppliers were placed under the
same legal obligation as all other employer, and therefore carried out such
testing and assessing on their own products.

Consequently, the main work of each individual museum (or other employer)
in complying with COSHH was (1) to identify the "substances" in use, (2) to
obtain from the manufacturer or supplier the necessary health assessment
for each together with the related safety recommendations for their safe
(or adequately controlled) use, (3) to ensure proper management procedures
and staff training and supervision to ensure that these safety
recommendations etc. were both understood and fully complied with and (4)
to establish and maintain proper long-term records of both the use, and
individual staff member exposures to, each relevant "substance".

It seems to me that museums concerned about Year 2000 problems (which means
just about every museum) should similarly be writing now to every single
supplier, their utilities, and the original manufacturers of equipment (or
current service contractor if the original firm is no longer in business)
and asking exactly parallel questions to those we had to ask when the
European COSHH regime came in.

This time, of course, the probing will need to be similarly item by item,
or service by service, but about compliance with Year 2000 standards in
respect of every one of the museum's computers, software packages, piece of
equipment that may have embedded microchip control systems (see above) as
well as asking all key public utilities servicing the museum (electricity,
gas, water, sewerage, telecommunications) guarantees they are offering
about continuity of supply and service on 1 January 2000.  One final
warning, with less than 17 months to go, so far (at least In Britain) not
one of the public utilities have given such a guarantee: just assurances
that they are "dealing with" the Year 2000 problem.


Patrick Boylan

City University, Frobisher Crescent, Barbican, London EC2Y 8HB, UK;
phone: +44-171-477.8750, fax:+44-171-477.8887; e-mail: [log in to unmask]
World Wide Web site: http://www.city.ac.uk/artspol/