Six Degrees of Preparation

Over a coffee the other day with a friend we were discussing what qualifications were most appropriate for a 21st Century IT professional. Obviously you would assume that a BSc in Computing or equivalent would rank highly, maybe even a BA in Information Technology, although at my Uni this were regarded as a soft option in IT degrees. Other studies related to New Media and Communications may also be relevant.

(FYI I studied on a Combined Sciences course of which one of my majors was Computer Sciences).

The funny thing is that when I got my first job in IT I was already COBOL trained so productive from pretty much day one. Not so for a couple of my new starter colleagues who read History and English Uni degree respectively. They embarked on a 6 month programming course.

IT is pretty unique in that way as it has alway been open to all comers. This is something that would be incoceivable in most other professions unless you had a relevant degree (i.e. Law, Medicine and Engineering) or even new fields like Biotechnology.

Back to the original question - what is the best degree. Well my mate believed that it would be a Law degree, followed by an MBA, because as we to oursourcing and cloud computing he believes that the only relevant skills for modern IT was drawing up and managing contracts.

That's a real shame.

In, out and shake it all about

I read the following article with some amusement especially given that an insurance company I used to work for has recently decided to outsource its IT development function to Accenture. Some good friends I know, many with long service to the company, are being made redundant in February.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/01/11/239898/Barclays-takes-application-development-back-in-house.htm

There are a couple of juicy quotes from the article that I just cannot resist:

Bringing development back inhouse was "the most efficient model that supports our business" according to a Barclays spokesman.

"Over time you have many services added to original contracts and the total bill rises so much it is better to do it in-house." Claude Roeltgen, CIO at Luxembourg bank BayernLB.

So here we are on at the start of a new decade (technically 2011 not 2010 but lets not be pedentic) and after six years a leading global bank is effectively conceding defeat on its outsourcing model.

For those new to IT this might come as something of a shock. Not to me. Outsourcing is not a new phenomenon. Back in the early 90's it was called Facilities Management. It didn't work then and if you're to believe Barclays it isn't working now.

Six Sigma

A couple of years ago during an RFI an offshore software vendor presented indicated that their software labs were 'six sigma' certified. Essentially this was offered as a guarantee of quality. They won the business essentially becuase they were the incumbent and they were cheap. So I ask you - how can a six sigma company submit software that has allegedy been system tested that doesn't even compile. Funnily enough the vendor bid for some more business recently and dragged out the same six sigma powerpoint slide. Some companies have no shame.

The Enemy Within

I have in my time had the displeasure to work in a couple of companies who have outsourced parts of their IT organisation (whether it be support, development). Whatever the relative merits of outsourcing, IMO, outsouring brings very few real benefits in the medium to long term. Obviously there is a percieved short term value proposition which leads companies down the outsourcing path in the first place (i.e. by reducing headcount) otherwise companies wouldn't do it.

As a result many IT people fear outsourcing, especially when cheaper offshoring is mixed into the equation. I used to be in this camp and a few years ago I believed that the best personal survival strategy against this trend was to move up the IT ladder into the 'talking' and 'thinking' space and distance myself from the 'doing' bit. I now don't have these worries.

Why? Well I recently had the opportunity to look at a large company that had outsourced almost its entire IT operation 5 years ago. The only elements not outsourced were the IT executive ('the talkers') and an enterprise architecture function ('the thinkers').

Their problem was that they had stopped delivering anything meaningful to the business. Why? Well there are a number of reasons but the one I wanted to focus on here is my belief that the outsourcer ('the doers') had effectively morphed into a fifth column working inside the IT shop. The resisted change at every opportunity and driven by the nature of the SLA's in place had redefined their role 'keeping the lights on'.

So did the business take this lying down. Of course not. It simply can't afford to. What it does is it effectively insources IT, usually covertly. Five years down the line they had more IT architects employed directly by the business than were left in central IT.