Widespread responsibility for fixing Y2K, (sidebar)

One of the most controversial questions asked in Packaging World's Y2K survey was which group has the major responsibility to fix Y2K problems. The most common reply was the "we're all in this together" kind of shared responsibility. "I think it's a collective effort between controls suppliers, the machinery OEMs and the end-users as a group to make sure it will all work together," said a representative of a sensor and controls manufacturer. A spokesman for a well-known maker of controls and related components agreed. "On responsibility, it's hard to say. We've tried to work together with everybody. Our thought is that this is really beyond a year 2000 issue," he responded. "We've been in business a long time, and we need to protect our business." Other controls manufacturers opt out of responsibility, instead pointing to packaging equipment OEMs and end-users. The responsibility "is shared equally by the packaging machinery builders and the end-user," said the representative of a maker of PC-based controls. "Controls makers need to go ahead and make sure the equipment manufacturers and the end-users are aware of what works and what will not work. But it's their responsibility to test" and ensure the packaging lines work. "We can't predict that or be responsible for it." Another maker of controls said the OEMs and systems integrators should be responsible. "These are the parties that need to develop the solutions. Not [for] free, of course, because you can't ask for a free solution to a [programming] problem that was not foreseeable [when the program was written]," said a spokesman for a vision systems manufacturer. "But these two groups ought to be able to come up with the upgrades and solutions that will minimize downtime and production stoppages." Another sees a chain of responsibility. The representative of a maker of drives and motion controllers said the controls suppliers must be "available to help the OEMs, and the machinery makers are responsible to the packager. If an end-user wants us to come in to perform an upgrade [to programming], we will. But we want to go in with the machinery manufacturer. We think that's the proper channel." A representative of a maker of programmable limit switches believes controls suppliers should play a big role. "The main responsibility is with the controls suppliers, but each party has some responsibility. Each must conduct testing--at the component stage, the machinery stage and the system stage." The final word comes from the spokesman for a manufacturer of motion controllers who believes responsibility can be apportioned. "If it was a known problem of the component manufacturer, say in the last three years, that manufacturer should fix it. If the integrator knew about it, that company should fix it. In the end, especially for older machines and components, it's going to be up to the end-users or the machine builders."