The job market for IT specialists will shrink 40 percent by 2010.

Let's start with the obvious question that would arise in India and Eastern Europe – you surely don’t mean there will be a 40 percent reduction everywhere, do you?

Submit a Comment | Permalink

The thrust of the prediction strikes closest to home in Western and other developed countries during the time frame suggested. But the same demand patterns are likely to affect developing and emerging economies, on time scales perhaps five to 10 years later. Why do we say that? As the IT labor market in Western and developed countries has changed shape and momentum in the past 10 years, so will the IT labor markets in countries now emerging as global delivery sources. In India, for example, as service providers and captive centers increase their staffing efforts to handle rising demand, we see recruitment and retention issues similar to those we saw in the United States in the late 1990s when the Internet caused IT opportunities to explode. As the service economy stretches into other developing regional economic clusters - various parts of China and Southeast Asia, for example - labor demand and supply will migrate from area to area. If the global delivery model proves to be as resilient as we believe it will be, we expect similar fluctuations in local and regional labor markets, though on different timelines (see "IT Management Scenario for 2015: Regional Clusters Lead in Quadrant 1").

We have been hearing this "IT people must be more business-oriented" stuff for at least a decade. But as silicon.com readers have commented (http://management.silicon.c...), nobody ever seems to point out the technological ineptitude of many business people. Is it all so one-way?

Business people just love to denigrate IT, calling us techie and saying we focus on the wrong things, but "tech cred" is essential in some of the world's fastest-growing businesses - like Google, for example. Maybe, as these commenters say, it's time to coin a new derogatory term, "bizzies," for those businesspeople who don't get how IT is changing everything they think they know.

Those are great points, and yes, many people in business could use some hardcore reality checks concerning their expectations about services, applications and technology devices. The provocative responses that Gartner's perspective has evoked on Web sites like silicon.com is tempered by responses that take not a defensive tack but an offensive tack. The answer to the questions above lies not in finger-pointing - which many people apparently think I'm doing with my prediction - but rather in developing and refining a common language that helps make points from all sides. For example, the overarching business language of cost, incoming revenue, market share, profitability, product development, competitive response and enterprise growth is a powerful common vernacular globally, commercially and professionally. It provides the necessary context for making decisions, whether technical, financial or otherwise. Some IT professionals already speak the language of business fluently; they are viewed as credible ambassadors of IT issues and interests. The language of technical specialists, on the other hand, is appropriate for similarly inclined technical experts, but it is not the language of business. Is that unfair to technical specialists? No. Roughly 80 percent of IT professionals in the U.S. alone work in companies that use IT, not in companies that create hardware, software or services. When that balance shifts as radically as the Google commenter wishes for, then we may see the language of technology become the vernacular. Meanwhile, IT professionals who can convey technology concepts in a language that is understood by people across business domains and that reflects business context and implications will be ahead of the game.

You say IT individuals must invest in skills specific to their business - like local processes, for example - but why would people take that risk? Companies treat people as disposable; there is no loyalty to long-serving staff in today's economy. Abstracted technology skills are transferable, and they have a recognizable market people can rely on, but perhaps German retail banking process skills would not be so easy to sell.

I would turn around that challenge. Why would people risk cultivating a narrow set of technical skills that, in a world moving steadily toward global sourcing of competencies and skills, would make them vulnerable to involuntary transfer and commoditization? Yes, it's true that abstracted technology skills are transferable, but who says that the transferability is initiated only by the individual? The past several years have proven that companies can initiate the transfer of technical skills with wider and heavier impact than individuals can. In fact, when enterprises seriously examine their sourcing options and their skill base, many cultivate or retain a set of organizational competencies different from technical skill sets.

For instance, a beverage company retains competencies associated with business integration and business partnership; it considers all other activities candidates for external sourcing. A carmaker retains organizational competencies around information definition, architecture, process design, service provider management and financial management. A diversified manufacturing company retains SAP business process analysis expertise, while outsourcing SAP programming and coding. Notably, all the cases intentionally retain and cultivate competencies that are specific to the business and steeped in local process knowledge. So, technical specialists have a choice: They can ignore our prediction and hope that it doesn't come true, or they can heed our prediction and prepare themselves for a future unlike the past. If it does come true, those who make the former choice put themselves in jeopardy. If it does not come true, those who make the second choice have continued to learn and develop the versatility that dynamic business markets require.

You suggest universities, community colleges and distance-learning programs have an opportunity "if they can reshape their curricula quickly." But the vast majority of academic institutions are very slow at developing new courses, aren't they? Is this just a forlorn hope?

Now, the question you've presented is not about the prediction, but rather an ongoing challenge for universities and higher-education programs, regardless of the singular catalyst. The capacity to sense and recognize new patterns and convert those patterns into innovative approaches for future markets is the challenge for all enterprises, not least among them academic institutions. Distance-learning universities are likely to flex their muscles faster and more effectively than universities with lengthy and cumbersome processes for defining and approving change. Let me give you two examples of the academic angst associated with these issues:

• In Australia, a university curriculum developer acknowledges that private-sector and public-sector employers ask the university to develop well-rounded IT students, educated in the contextual realities of industry, processes and business problems. Meanwhile, the students want the university to provide technical certification programs, period.

• A second example is from someone in academia who read Gartner's "IT Professional Outlook" report published in September 2005. That individual provided the following feedback: "One of the big things we struggle with inside of the MIS academic discipline is understanding how we should prepare students for the future. I have tried to advocate for shifting from a single monolithic set of competencies built around programming and recognize that IT professionals are no longer just a single set of skills. Your publication stated this far better and with much greater insight than I could ever have hoped to do myself and I am hugely grateful for the groundswell of interest that it is getting in the academic world. [We are] absolutely convinced that Gartner can really help universities better prepare students for the future."

I believe that the the IT job market is expanding, not contracting. Even as mundane work is being offshored, advancing technology is creating ever more exciting opportunities for the continuing spread of IT.

Sure, people who are both business and IT-savvy are not as bountiful as managers would wish, but I feel the solution is to integrate a strong person of each domain, not to incubate individuals incorporating both skills. Good domain skills are only achieved through continuing experience in a domain. Attaining domain expert level for two domains is inherently difficult to achieve in a single person.

Regarding technical vs. allround-skill learning in Universities, I think it valuable to learn skills from the ground up, starting with the technical. Once that level of maturity is attained, higher level expertise, e.g. project management, intest in business domain knowhow, etc. comes naturally to those who seek it. It's an inherent maturing process in many poeple.

I have seen already a clera cut of IT jobs inmany organizations, mainly in the production area. But we today face lack of IT technical skills as an example DB and OS/390

The way automation and consolidation is storming the world, its just the matter of time before the big fishes in organizations get exposed.Companies will go around with an axe to cut out these surfaced wood logs and make a leaner neater IT division.This obviously means job cuts across the globe and the associated socio economic tensions akin to the post .com burst blues.

In so many words it sounds like my current skillset (ASP.NET developer) is sorely insufficient. The problem is will there be any opportunities for me to move into a more business oriented role?

40%? Interesting. The last figure I read was a decrease of 14% since 2000. Could the IT industry begin a mass erosion of jobs to the tune of 3x from an all time high five years ago? The three basic forces of job erosion will continue: standardization, globalization, and automation. So perhaps 40% is not that far fetched; said the farmer to the factory worker; said the factory worker to the information worker; said the information worker to the...

Diane, Thank you for the insights. I understand and agree with you argument. But how I can get the skill set which will keep me valuable in future. Can you please provide some specific advice Like in waht are the growth and future areas are, what type of skill set will be in demand in this global world and how we can attain those skillset.

I disagree that all companies think their Associates are commodities - replaceable on a whim. I agree that there are many shortsighted organizations who hire and sever based on projects - the most successful companies recognize though that their Associates, and the knowledge they posses is the key to their success. The key to this issue is two-sided: Companies must employ career development opportunities to their Associates at both functional and personal levels - to avoid stagnation, and Associates must keep their skills sharp as well (both functional and personal) to avoid the tendency to commoditize their work and position. The key to my success has been my work to differentiate what I do from my position peers. By allowing the only differentiator to be the price of my service or work – I am inviting others to bid on my position and the work it is accountable to deliver.

The job market for IT specialists will shrink 40 percent by 2010

How come...The world is progressing with technology, it is sure that the IT role is felt along...They will be requirement for the right people, but there will be many people for the same...that might be the reason to shrink in IT jobs requirement by 2010. I do not think we have right proffesionals for all the IT profiles...I thought we are on the way of making...by the time you make it, if requirement shrinks...it will be a misfortune to World and to IT professionals.

It is disheartening to realize such a prediction of 40% is likely to be correct. Corporate mentality is largely of the belief that its workers are ultimately expendable. This is obvious by the 'exempt' job status of IT full-time employees as well as 'employment at will' type clauses in job applications.

Not to cut the legs out from under college stutdent striving for IT careers, but why aren't companies hiring back the tens of thousands if IT and business savvy employees laid off over the past 5 years?

Is America cutting its own throat by increasing technology outsourcing, as WAL-MART increased retail goods outsourcing to China? Microsoft already gives the education edge to India by discounting certification training classes by 50%.

There are some very interesting points here. There is a thought that keeps going through my mind. With more and more people beginning to run buisnesses out of there homes and large buisnesses outsourcing to other countries the only people that will be left with jobs here in the US will be those people who have some unique talents or are IT sauvvy enough to use there skills over the internet. Technology is taking over so many jobs and as it advances more and more jobs will be lost to computers and technology. The only ones who will survive will be the ones who understand and can keep the technology efficient and up to date. As technology becomes more effecient it will take less and less people to keep it working causing a severe drop in the number of jobs. Now I know this is a bit extreme and probably won't be as extreme as I am making it sound, but shouldn't we consider this long term ramification when considering how we intergrate our learning and skill developement both now and into the future?