All Posts in Career Management

|In: Career Management|Last Updated:

I’m mad at Bob Metcalfe.

But first … IS Survivalist Roger Crawford points out one of Microsoft’s business practices that’s even more unfair than its antitrust shenanigans, namely, how it describes new products or product plans: “We are developing product X that does functions a, b and c and we expect these types of people to use it.”

Its competitors, who say things like, “We intend to leverage our strengths in the buzzword arena to provide our customers with the tools they need,” are handicapped, because it’s never quite clear what they’re planning to produce, nor for whom.

For fairness’s sake, the courts should prohibit Microsoft from clearly explaining its plans ever again. Based on what I’ve read so far about Microsoft.NET, it appears the Redmond contingent is already complying, because just what the heck are they mumbling about, anyway?

As soon as I read about Microsoft.NET, I thought, “This is Microsoft’s SAA!” I figured I’d write about it eventually. Metcalfe had the same insight, though, so there goes my claim to originality. Nuts.

If you don’t remember SAA, it stands for “Systems Application Architecture”. IBM, in the early days of its implosion, developed it to do for applications what its Systems Network Architecture (SNA) had done for networking: Provide a standard architecture IBM could control. SAA wasn’t a product. It was a framework within which IBM’s future products would, in theory, fit.

IBM’s core strategy was to control architecture. Even when companies bought non-IBM components, everything fit the IBM model for functional elements, specifications, and interfaces. The strategy worked because you could buy every component from IBM if you wanted to. SAA failed because the only thing IBM had was intentions.

Sound familiar?

Microsoft.NET is a non-starter. Ignore it. If, miraculously, it succeeds, you’ll pay little penalty for waiting. You have absolutely no reason to be an early adopter (and of what? There’s no product!), and lots of reasons to wait and see what happens.

But this column isn’t about Microsoft, nor IBM, nor, for that matter, about Metcalfe’s beating me to the punch. It’s about you and your IT organization.

Take a look at your mission statement, vision statement, strategic intent, program charter, or whatever defines what you’re trying to accomplish these days. While you’re at it, read some of your recent communications. Does it all look like Microsoft.NET, or does it mean something?

Meaningless visions like Microsoft.NET are punishments for the sins of our forefathers. American industry, paralyzed by a generation of bottom-line managers who couldn’t see past financial statements, awoke one day to the need for vision. Ever since, every self-styled leader in business has made sure to start at least one sentence per day by saying, “My vision for this is …”

Don’t do that. Let others decide whether you’re a visionary or not. Your job is to paint a compelling vision for the future. While it’s tempting to be an artist, painting blurry abstract swirls others can interpret as they choose, abstract artistry isn’t leadership. It isn’t vision. It’s Microsoft.NET.

Grand visions are wonderful things. But if nobody can figure out that you’re developing product X, with functions a, b and c, you aren’t a visionary.

You’re just daydreaming.

Comments

|In: Career Management|Last Updated:

There’s only one long-term answer to the IT labor shortage, and that’s Tom Swift Jr. If you aren’t familiar with the series, Tom Swift was for science fiction what Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys were for mysteries. Swift was a genius in his late teens who invented cool stuff, had lots of adventures, and always saved the day.

I grew up on the Tom Swift stories, and dreamed of doing stuff like that too.

If Isaac Asimov is to be believed (and if you can’t believe Ike, who can you believe?) there’s a very strong correlation between reading science fiction as a child and entering a technical profession as an adult. If, as a nation, we want more home-grown scientists, engineers and programmers, the long-term solution is obvious.

In the meantime, you need to hire some IT professionals, you can’t find them, and you can’t wait until the science fiction curriculum is added to the schools, kids grow up in it, and they graduate and enter the workforce. What are you supposed to do right now?

I wrote about the IT labor shortage two years ago, and to show you just how much influence we pundits have, very little has changed between then and now. The fact of the matter? There is an IT labor shortage, but it’s mostly self-inflicted.

Recruitment ads still specify computer science degrees and long lists of specific products. Why? Companies run too lean, hiring only when there’s a specific, urgent need. They can’t afford the time needed to retrain good employees or new hires. Voila! Instant shortage. When nobody is willing to train their employees, it’s inevitable.

For example, some companies are laying off their Y2K staff, who don’t have the “right” skills, while simultaneously recruiting other IT professionals who do — a process that may easily take three months and a $20K+ signing bonus.

Well gee whiz, kids, you are in a pickle, aren’t you? I wonder what would have happened if you’d spent the $20K and three months retraining the poor schmuck who worked his eyeballs out fixing your Y2K problems instead.

Are these companies really that dumb? It’s possible. According to astrophysicists, stupidity may be the “dark matter” that makes up as much as 90% of the universe’s mass. Unlike IT labor, there’s no shortage of the stuff.

But there’s another possibility.

Firing unproductive employees is difficult. It’s emotionally draining, procedurally intense, and legally risky. Sometimes, layoffs are smokescreens that allow companies to terminate employees who aren’t making the grade. They may be incompetent, hard to work with, or they may have just run afoul of company politics, but for one reason or another they’ve been labeled as “undesirable”.

Three decades ago Harold Sackman showed that the best programmers are 20 times more productive than average ones. Imagine what the other side of the bell curve produces. If you factor these folks out … and if you’re hiring, you should … you find another reason there’s a shortage.

One thing is certain. IT managers can’t find the people they’re looking for. So if you’re looking for work in IT, that puts you in the catbird seat. All you gotta do is to be that person. Which also means that if you can’t find work … and there are a lot of programmers and analysts who can’t … it’s time to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

Companies are hiring. If they aren’t hiring you, there’s a reason.

Comments