Posted on 08/13/2003 8:20:37 PM PDT by thimios
U.S. Offshore Outsourcing Leads to Structural Changes and Big Impact Gartner
By Diane Morello Vice President & Research Director
As offshore outsourcing ramps up, the dislocation of IT jobs in the United States is becoming real. CIOs must anticipate the potential loss of talent, knowledge and performance.
Many Ramifications With an Outsourcing Decision
In the first half of 2003, the application development manager of a well-known company was frantic. Her staff was near mutiny. A day earlier, the CIO had called an "all hands" meeting and announced that he could save the company $30 million during the next few years. How did he propose to do that? By moving application development offshore to outsourcing vendors. The application developers in the room were stunned. Immediately, they crowded into the office of their manager, all asking similar questions: What does this mean for me? Is my job safe? Will I become unemployed?
That scene is occurring in company after company around the United States, from midsize to large companies, with each decision affecting between 150 and 1,000 people. The movement of IT-related work from the United States and other developed countries to vendors and offshore sites in emerging markets is an irreversible mega trend. Although the United States may feel the biggest effect from this movement, other developed economies, including Australia and the United Kingdom, feel disoriented, too.
The workforce changes that accompany the trend toward offshore delivery - whether offshore outsourcing or offshore insourcing - are structural in nature, not fleeting or temporal. The effect of IT offshore outsourcing on the United States is a harbinger of changes in other countries that pursue global sourcing models. The workforce and labor-market consequences will be substantial.
Three CIO Issues
Three overarching issues shape CIOs' obligations around offshore outsourcing:
As long as new investment in IT remains low in North America and Western Europe, IT offshore outsourcing will yield a displacement of IT professionals and IT-related jobs. CIOs who make ill-informed decisions today will be unable to find or acquire the requisite local knowledge and competencies when IT investment resumes.
Few enterprises would deliberately choose to cede intellectual assets to offshore outsourcing vendors, but some executives fail to envision today which skills, knowledge or processes will generate business innovation tomorrow. Vision, leadership and an understanding of how technology fuels competitive advantage will help CIOs and business counterparts retain core knowledge.
CIOs and other business leaders must be clear about their plans, timing and transition phases for the offshore outsourcing transition. They must develop milestones, timelines and accountability. Moreover, they must communicate honestly and respectfully to keep performance high and defuse employee anger.
Not a Pretty Picture for the IT Workforce
Since 2001, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 500,000 people in IT professions in the United States have lost their jobs. Some were caught in the dot-com bust. Others were laid off by cost cuts, shrinking budgets, a poor economy and a desire to satisfy shareholders quarter by quarter. Now, a growing number of IT professionals and practitioners are having their jobs displaced as IT work moves to offshore venues.
Without a "shot of adrenaline" to the U.S. IT profession - such as an investment boom, a "white knight" industry, new IT-led innovation or new ways of competing globally - the scenario for the IT workforce in the United States and other developed nations looks bleak.
Large U.S. enterprises, vendors and service providers aggressively are investigating or pursuing offshore markets for IT delivery. Combining that interest with minimal new investment, preliminary Gartner analysis - based on the IT Association of America's count of 10.3 million IT practitioners in the United States in 2003 - indicates that another 500,000 IT jobs plausibly may disappear by year-end 2004.
By year-end 2004, one out of every 10 jobs within U.S.-based IT vendors and IT service providers will move to emerging markets, as will one out of every 20 IT jobs within user enterprises (0.8 probability).
Through 2005, fewer than 40 percent of people whose jobs are moved to emerging markets will be re-deployed by their current employers (0.8 probability).
Likely Implications of IT Offshoring
To many CIOs and business executives, the decision to outsource activities offshore is fiscally sound:
The cost, quality, value and process advantages are well proven.
Moreover, at a time when IS organizations are struggling with poor credibility and IT is being scrutinized, offshore outsourcing is becoming a tool for improving service delivery and a source of highly qualified talent in greater numbers.
Finally, the extensive use of quality methodologies among offshore vendors - such as Software Capability Maturity Model (CMM), People CMM and ISO 9000 - enables a degree of assurance that many in-house organizations lack.
Gartner urges CIOs and other business executives not to trivialize the impact of offshore outsourcing on their business strategies, their organizations or their employees. Three areas of concern arise:
Loss of future talent;
Loss of intellectual assets;
Loss of organizational performance.
Loss of Future Talent
Many IT applications and services that are being considered for movement offshore are now run and maintained by seasoned IT professionals in user companies, technology vendors and IT service providers. Offshore movement of that technical work implies a significant displacement of IT professionals who possess organizational memory around IT investments. At the same time, college students in the United States, the United Kingdom and other developed countries see technical work moving to emerging markets, and see family and friends losing technical jobs. Interest in pursuing technical careers will wane.
Why should CIOs care? Because they cannot afford to have domestic IT talent "dry up." When investment resumes and the economy rebounds, CIOs will need a cadre of seasoned IT professionals and eager recruits to "turbocharge" new ideas, new investments and new programs.
Loss of Intellectual Assets
CIOs and enterprise executives must ask: If everything can theoretically be outsourced, what kind of knowledge must we retain or develop? At Gartner's Outsourcing Summit in Los Angeles in June 2003, 39 percent of attendees at the session "Managing Workforce-Related Risk in Outsourcing" cited the loss of critical knowledge as the greatest source of workforce-related risk around outsourcing. Identifying, capturing and measuring core enterprise knowledge is daunting, especially when critical knowledge is often subordinate to technical skill sets.
For now, most enterprises send straightforward technical activities and routine business processes offshore, but the ease with which they can move those activities may numb decision-makers to the need to maintain and protect essential knowledge/
Six areas of core knowledge that are worth protecting include:
Enterprise Knowledge: How do our products, services and systems blend together?
Cultural Knowledge: How do we do things here? What are our beliefs? Who really makes decisions?
Social Network Knowledge: Which roles and which people form critical connective tissue?
Strategic Knowledge: What are our objectives and competitive advantages?
Industry and Process Knowledge: How do our industry, competitors, and customers operate?
Activity Knowledge: Do we know which people are doing what today?
Loss of Organizational Performance
Offshore outsourcing weakens the already-fragile relationships between employees and employers. Whether CIOs are considering, investigating or actively pursuing offshore outsourcing, they should prepare for a bumpy ride. Beneath the sound business reasons for outsourcing lie thornier issues associated with people.
Decisions to outsource - whether offshore or domestic - bring upheaval to IS organizational competencies, roles and makeup. More than 40 percent of attendees at the workforce-related risk presentation at Gartner's Outsourcing Summit considered their organizations to be ill-prepared for the new roles, competencies and skills that accompany an outsourcing delivery model.
Are Enterprises Prepared for Outsourcing? Not Really
The situation worsens with offshore outsourcing, because fewer than 40 percent of the people affected will be re-deployed. During the offshore transition, the degree of uncertainty is so high that it can severely disrupt organizational performance. CIOs and other business executives should hold themselves accountable for sustaining and improving organizational performance levels during the transition. To do so, they should coordinate along several lines:
Identify competencies, roles, people and knowledge that will be retained. To prevent organizational paralysis, CIOs must define the future role and shape of their IS organizations as certain day-to-day activities move overseas. Gartner research reveals that many enterprises retain such critical functions as application design, application integration, client-facing process management, enterprise architecture, information management and high-investment competency centers. In addition, they develop new competencies in service management, vendor relationship management, process management and business integration.
Create a meaningful transition plan. Provide clear timelines and milestones to help people prepare for the changes that offshore outsourcing brings (for example, Milestone A will be reached in six months, Milestone B six months later and Milestone C 12 months after that). At each milestone, certain segments of work or applications will complete their offshore transfer, and the affected people will be terminated or re-deployed. Companies that have a lasting commitment to their people will generally spend time arranging redeployment of their affected employees.
Outline employees' options. Define the options available for affected employees: re-skilling, re-deployment, termination or outplacement. The way in which enterprises deal with employees during the offshore transition will be a lasting testament to the perception of leadership and the reputation of the company as an employer. Executives must hold themselves accountable for communicating clearly, quickly and meaningfully. "I don't know" is an unacceptable answer when the organization's performance and people's livelihood are at stake.
Bottom Line
CIOs and business leaders in the United States and other developed countries should move carefully as they pursue offshore outsourcing.
Until IT investment resumes, IT offshore outsourcing will yield a displacement of IT professionals and IT-related jobs.
CIOs who make ill-informed decisions will be unable to find or develop qualified talent when they need it.
Additionally, CIOs and other business leaders must be clear about envisioning what knowledge, roles, people and skills will fuel competitive advantage in the future - otherwise, they risk losing core knowledge.
Finally, CIOs must communicate clearly, honestly and respectfully about the transition plan, and about the options available to affected employees.
I would remind you of no personal abuse. Dane was called a liar for making statements that were demonstavly false. You still have not come up with the fifty year period where teh Republican Party was devasted and out of power. By the way if you are reffering to the period from 1954 to 1994 how did tariff policy have any relationship to that and Please explain how Republicans are out of power for that fifty year period when they actualy held the Presidency for many of those years?
Like I said discuss issues ytou will get answers reasonably and calmly engage inpersonal attacks and you will get called on that also.
The Feds have programs in place that make it advantageous for US firms to export jobs. Eliminate those programs, and the cost benefits to those firms end. Then they either have to put up or shut up. In either event, those jobs will begin to migrate back to the states.
Never underestimate "Wallet Voting".
At any rate, I have two problems with this. One, I can't stand the thought of going to the government to solve problems that government created because government is the problem.
Unquestionably; however, tariffs were championed by our founding fathers. They recognized that the evil of government must manifest itself in some limited ways. This was a way they actually agreed was of the least harm.
And, two, I have a hard time holding someone responsible for something that they didn't do. Where is Congress in all this mess?
Well, not only that -- but Bill Clinton himself was one of the people who started this NAFTA / GATT mess. So I hold him culpable as well. I'd sure like to see Dubya step up to the plate on this issue, however, so it would be clear he has a) recognized the issue and b) is taking steps against the problems.
IOW, anyone who disagrees with harpseal is automatically a liar.
So be it. It's a free country, you and Hillary can keep your alls hubris.
Back to the original point: Do you stand behind what you wrote, "You say a lot of evil things about our President. I think you need to be held accountable for running your mouth and making these insulting, outragous claims. Like President Bush said, you're either with us or against us. I can only presume you're an enemy of this nation."
Is it true that you believe that anyone who makes comments that you deem 'evil' or 'outrageous' or even 'insulting' must be 'held accountable' as an 'enemy of this nation'?
How would you hold them accountable? Would you torture them? Hold them at Gitmo? Deport them? Tell me your exact fascist plans for the 'enemies of the state'.
This is it in a nutshell. Unfortunately, these same myopic midgets have way too much lobbying influence with government.
I used to be a big fan of Warren Buffet until I read that he contributes to Democrats, even to Her Heinous, Hitllary, and is against the repeal of the estate tax, the death knell to many start up family businesses.
Well lets hope that a majority of the vooters in a msority of teh electral college states are going to vote for GWB over a Democrat.
At any rate, I have two problems with this. One, I can't stand the thought of going to the government to solve problems that government created because government is the problem.
By this standard it was wrong to try to get government to enact the welfare reform of the 1990's because it was going to government to solcve a problem government created. Sometimes when theproblem is government polkicies or programs only government action can change them.
Government exists because the alternative is anarchy. Anarchy has usually resulted in rule by the strongest. Such a situation has been shown to be a disaster.
And, two, I have a hard time holding someone responsible for something that they didn't do. Where is Congress in all this mess?
Now should Congress be held responsible? Clearly yes. Will they? If history is a guide probably not.
Hat-Trick
I've got a little of the same situation: Crazy_Liberal wants to continuously levy ad hominums even though I keep refocusing back to forcing him to defend his fascist comments, that anyone who even 'insults' the president is an enemy of the state. Crazy_Liberal won't even bother with ANY cogent thought any more, but harpseal will. So why don't you take advantage of the fact that at least you guys are blessed with a decent debater? :o)
Say, speaking of sense, is it sensible to stand behind what you wrote, "You say a lot of evil things about our President. I think you need to be held accountable for running your mouth and making these insulting, outragous claims. Like President Bush said, you're either with us or against us. I can only presume you're an enemy of this nation."
Is it true that you believe that anyone who makes comments that you deem 'evil' or 'outrageous' or even 'insulting' must be 'held accountable' as an 'enemy of this nation'?
How would you hold them accountable? Would you torture them? Hold them at Gitmo? Deport them? Tell me your exact fascist plans for the 'enemies of the state'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.