2. Real-world experiences
The impact of the earlier DST start date was noticeable but the magnitude of the impact was generally felt more by larger enterprises than small businesses or home computer users. Problems were experienced in a number of areas:
Small devices or systems did not correctly ascertain and/or display their local time correctly, usually, but not always, being off by an hour.
Some already entered/stored dates/times, such as those in a calendaring system, were no longer correct, again, in most cases being off by an hour.
Some already entered/stored all day events, were no longer correct, now spanning more than a single day.
Synchronization between devices/systems, such as a smart phone and a calendaring system, resulted in previously correctly stored events now having incorrect times and/or dates.
Some users “manually” corrected already entered/stored events which later became incorrect after software updates were applied which automatically “re-corrected” these same events.
A major utility in one of the Western US states, which could not update all of its electrical meters in time and accepted that there would be some minor accounting discrepancies for the extended DST period.
Some enterprise systems could not be automatically remediated with software patches, requiring end users to “manually” adjust dates/times which were now incorrect.
In some cases, when reviewing remediated systems for correct results, users mistook correct time/dates for incorrect values and changed them yet again.
While most vendors recognized the seriousness of the problem and responded responsibly by producing patches, conversion tools and workarounds, some problems persisted, and others actually resulted from these remediation efforts:
Some fixes were not available in time for IT staffs to deploy enterprise-wide before the DST period began.
Some initial patches were faulty, requiring later “fixes” to the initial fix.
The sequencing of patches, both chronologically as well as with respect to the application of other patches, was not well understood or communicated in some cases.
Some vendors did a better job than others communicating with their customers about which systems required remediation and how to affect that remediation.
IT staffs also encountered difficulties, including:
Help desks being flooded with end user questions and problem reports.
Being able to locate and obtain information and updates for all their products and devices.
Providing information and instructions to their user communities.
Finding adequate resources to do all the required remediation.
Identifying all the devices and systems requiring remediation.
Remediating systems in the proper sequences and at the correct times.
Remediating locally developed applications and/or systems.
Deciding what to do about end-of-life or otherwise no longer supported systems for which no remediation was available.
Inadequate coordination and cooperation between units in larger organizations.
Generally speaking, the media treated the issue without much hype or hysteria, underplaying the significance if anything, unlike the confusion generated with the Y2K preparations. There were few “news of the weird” stories generated by the earlier DST start.
In most cases, remediation of systems as well as any “manual” corrections required, were accomplished shortly after March 11, 2007. There were virtually no reports of additional problems on April 1, 2007 the date which DST would have begun under the 1986 rules.
Many IT staff and end users resorted to Google searches for vendor and more general information on the DST changes. Although CalConnect did provide a web page, “Extended Daylight Saving Time Links, Advisories and Changes”, there were very few web sites which served as authoritative clearinghouses of DST information.
DST-related issues seemed to gain the most traction and awareness within user groups and professional organizations very close the March 11th date, leaving insufficient time in many cases for the necessary tasks.