All Posts in Leadership

|In: Industry Commentary|Last Updated:

I spoke recently at the Making Statistics More Effective in Schools of Business conference. My host, Jon Cryer, figured the odds were pretty good that I said something useful. Since he teaches statistics and authored a nifty CD-ROM to help with the teaching process, I trust his judgment.

Flushed with success from having talked to a bunch of professional statisticians I’m ready to take on yet another ridiculous statistic floating around the industry. That’s the supposed deficit of a-whole-lotta IT professionals we’re trying to overcome these days.

(Ironic tidbit: While lots of readers responded to my recent columns on Microsoft by restating the BIG/GAS theory (“Business Is Good/Government and Academics are Stupid”) saying government should just stay out of things and let business handle it, lots more are blasting the government for considering a bill that would allow more foreign IT professionals to compete for jobs in the U.S.A. I guess the government does have a role to play after all … protecting our jobs from a free market.)

What does the job deficit mean? As calculated, it means we create many more jobs in IS/IT each year than we graduate computer science students. Where, the doomsayers ask rhetorically, will the rest of the talent we need come from?

Answer: The same place they’ve been coming from since before I entered the field. As regular IS Survivalists know I learned to program analyzing data I collected studying the behavior of electric fish. My co-workers in my first job in industry were a former meteorology student and a former marketing analyst, and we built systems as fast and successfully as any of our co-workers.

Before you read any more of this column, take a look at your open job requisitions. Do they ask for a computer science degree? Probably. Does the job require a computer science degree? Probably not.

The people you’re hiring will analyze real world problems and envision solutions that incorporate information technology where appropriate. They’ll design system architectures, legacy system integration strategies and effective user interfaces. They’ll code, compile and test applications. They’ll help end-users solve problems, too, and troubleshoot network problems.

A few of these jobs would benefit … not require, you understand, but benefit … from a computer science degree. Many would be better off with a student of physics, anthropology, or international studies who figured out how to use computers creatively to solve real problems.

The position you have open may not require any college degree at all. Despite decades of evolution, we’re still designing databases, business logic, legacy system interfaces, user interfaces, and reports. Yes, these tasks require a level of sophistication. I’ve worked with quite a few trade school graduates who did a fine job at them.

You can fill other positions with “power users” — non-IS professionals who have learned to use computers on the job and figured out lots of innovative uses for them during the years IS ignored personal computers as pointless toys.

When you create a position description that includes the phrase “computer science” anyplace on the page, you’re begging human resources to screen out hordes of candidates who could succeed in the job. Think of it this way. We know we have a shortage of computer science graduates. We don’t know if we have a shortage of candidates who would succeed if we gave them the chance.

Some positions may go unfilled for three to six months while you wait for the perfect candidate. If you choose someone less qualified but who has the right smarts, attitude and motivation, you could provide enough training in a month to make up the deficit.

Then you’d have a smart, motivated, very loyal employee with a good attitude.

Comments

|In: Leadership|Last Updated:

Some magazine or other once asked me to identify the biggest barrier to computer telephone integration (CTI). “No logical organizational sponsor,” I replied. “Telecom managers see it as just another headache, IS directors figure it’s telephone stuff, and call center managers see it as the devil’s tool since callers will have to interact with technology.”

It was a good answer, but wrong. Lack of a sponsor (now a non-issue) was reason number 2. The biggest obstacle to CTI, then and now, is PBX reliability.

PBXs deliver “five-nines” quality — they work at a 99.999% service level. That’s good, and it’s why telecom managers do well running data centers — they don’t think downtime is normal.

It’s also bad, because as long as your PBX continues to deliver dial-tone, explaining why you need a new one is hard. Old PBXs don’t support CTI, though, so they, rather than lack of sponsor, are the biggest obstacle to its implementation.

We’re continuing with our series on creating an integrated IS plan. This week we focus on the company’s operational goals — perhaps “infrastructural” is a better term, or “pain-in-the-neck”. Dial-tone delivery is an important operational goal. So is messaging (voice mail, e-mail, fax), collaboration (groupware), and support for general office tasks (word processing, spreadsheets and so on).

Everything about figuring out operational goals is awkward. Setting concrete goals is hard, calculating payback is impossible, and getting the executive suite interested in discussing anything about the subject other than cost is almost embarrassing since they expect you to be thinking strategically.

The basic question, which can only be answered in the executive suite, is one of lifestyle. We’re dealing with the basic furnishings of day-to-day work life. Over the years we’ve learned two basic lessons: (1) Eventually every desk gets one; and (2) There’s a ratchet effect — you can add items to the list but you can’t take any off. Lifestyle reduction is hard — once you own two cars, going back to one is demoralizing.

The basic lifestyle question is for you what benefits is to human resources. There’s no demonstrable ROI or benefit to the P&L, but the company has to do it anyway. It may not be value-adding in the accounting sense, but not doing it is value-subtracting so you’re stuck.

Settle the basics in the executive suite, then move on to the next agenda item. As CIO your personal focus should be on value-adding activities, so delegate the detailed planning to an up-and-comer who wants it and can get enthusiastic about it (your Information Center manager?), teamed with your data center/network manager.

The plan itself includes a few key elements:

  • Lifestyle description — little more than a list of the key tools you’ll be providing and supporting. This list should be by category (telephones, e-mail, groupware). You’ll deal with specific products and standards later on, in your technical architecture plan.
  • End-user interest group — a collection of power users, end-user technology thought leaders, and PC mentors. It should meet monthly with your Information Center manager, and be closely involved in your planning and priority setting. It’s an invaluable resource.
  • End-user support plan — giving employees a great toolkit and then cheaping out when it comes to helping them use the tools is dumb. Be sure to balance the need for support with a goal of self-sufficiency, though, or you’ll create a bottomless money pit.

That’s about it. Added to the strategic and operational goals we’ve planned for over the past few weeks you have validated, consensused, syndicated, and generally spread around your thorough understanding of what your company needs from information technology.

All that’s left is doing something about it.

Comments