Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States IT

Half of U.S. I.T. Operations Jobs to Vanish 625

Ant writes "A MacCentral article says Gartner, Inc. researchers believe that as many as 50 percent of the IT operational jobs in the U.S. could disappear over the next two decades because of improvements in data center technologies. Donna Scott, a Gartner analyst, said IT workers face a situation similar to that in the manufacturing field, which has lost jobs over the past several decades as automation has improved. Similarly, standardization of IT infrastructure, applications and processes will lead to productivity improvements and a major shift in skill needs, she said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Half of U.S. I.T. Operations Jobs to Vanish

Comments Filter:
  • by Fiz Ocelot ( 642698 ) <baelzharonNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @09:05PM (#10969666)
    No actually the goal would be to eliminate the need to even outsource at all, as you don't need that many people. It will eventually be achieved, just look at how farming and manufacturing has moved. Always towards higher efficiancy. Simply outsourcing isn't exactly efficient.
  • by ArmedLemming ( 18042 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @09:13PM (#10969755)
    to anyone here in the IT biz. Maybe it's something the IT people here have buried their heads in the sand about it, but anyone who sits on their laurels (knowledge) in the IT industry is bound to be finding their position slowly eroded away by the improvements in tech.

    One upside to the new/improving tech eroding the need for IT jobs that springs to mind is the opportunity for someone to start a 'Personal Technologist' business. Anyone who can master Blackberrys, PDAs, iPods/mp3 players, etc would be in big demand from all the PHBs with the gadgets but without the time or inclination to RTFM. I think that'd be a natural progression for most IT people I know...

  • Not on my watch. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bug-Y2K ( 126658 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @09:16PM (#10969784) Homepage


    I actually manage a small datacenter [forest.net]. One thing I have learned after 10 years in the Internet Server hosting and colocation game is SERVICE is what sets you apart from competitors. The big .com era hosting superstars (exodus, colo.com, etc) all built their datacenters with the concept of "lights out" and "reboot button monkeys" for (skeleton) staff. Where are they now?


    So long as software is wriiten by flawed [microsoft.com] humans and small business clients need to have smart people on-call to assist them when they delete files, or bork their server again... datacenters will require support staff.


    If you ever call our support number and get some guy in Bangalore answering the phone, you will know that I'm dead... 'cause until then, I'm hiring geeks - right here. Thank you.

  • by rewt66 ( 738525 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @09:17PM (#10969793)
    If we have as many systems as I think we're going to have in 20 years, and one person can still only effectively manage the same number of systems as they can now, we're going to have big problems.

    Really, even if they are 100% right, this is not a bad thing. The less-capable half of sysadmins will have to find something more useful to do. I say "more useful" because, from the larger view, the view of the economy as a whole, IT people are mostly wasted. They don't produce anything (well, they do design and roll out networks, but most of their work is to keep our incredibly brittle systems from falling apart. It would be less wasteful to make less brittle systems.)

  • 1984 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Snorklefish ( 639711 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @09:17PM (#10969800)
    From the article:
    ...as many as 50 percent of the IT operational jobs in the U.S. could disappear over the next two decades because of improvements in data center technologies.
    To put this in perspective, imagine someone predicting the rise of the commercial internet, the dotcom bubble and its bust... all in 1984.
  • by zorkmid ( 115464 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @09:18PM (#10969807)
    and the ever elusive "they" were saying this way back then.

    About coding (Joe user would just describe what he wanted done to the computer and wah-lah. It would program itself).

    About Databases.

    And about sys admin.

    Eventually, if they keep yammering out this prediction, they'll may be right.

    I'm not holding my breath though.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @09:20PM (#10969832)
    "IT operations, which encompass areas such as systems administration, incident response and change management, today account for about 55 percent of an IT department's labor cost, said Scott, who spoke at the Stamford, Conn.-based research firm's annual data center conference here in Las Vegas."

    Good thing I'm a web services programmer who specializes in working closely with small businesses to develop their IT infrastructures, web and data management systems, programming custom tools and database applications, designing web pages including concepting, layout and graphic design, and so on and so on.

    I've been saying it for years: the concept of a generic "IT" job is dead. The concept of having a company webmaster, for example, who just makes page updates and other web duties is long dead. And I've always known that a lot of admin functionality that currently isn't was bound to be automated.

    You've gotta have multiple skills and be able to work closely with business decision makers to assist them (and guide them) towards increased profitiblity, time savings, streamlined processes, etcetera. *Those* are the jobs that can't be shipped overseas, and won't ever be.
  • Re:10 to 20 years (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworldNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @09:22PM (#10969856) Homepage
    Right on. People always affraid of jobs disappearing and often forget that there is always new jobs being created. It is called progress. Every major labor saving invention puts people out of job. But it frees them up to do something new.

    Tell that to people in the rust belt who lost their manufacturing jobs in the 70s and haven't found a replacement in 30 years. A lot of people just struggle on through multiple low-paying, benefit-less job, service industry jobs, putting spouses and family members to work, government assistance, and just plain adopting a significantly lower standard of living. You all want that? Judging by the comments I see on slashdot, it looks like it.

    Wake up. Jobs don't magically appear when needed. A large number of you are gonna be screwed when automation and outsourcing leaves you in your 40s and 50s without a job. You'd better pray social security's still around then, but that's kind of a slim hope.

    Of course, it doesn't matter to me, I moved out of the IT field into something that can't be outsourced so easily. But I just don't like what's going to happen to all my old friends and coworkers when the industry bottoms out.

    Oh no, you're saying, if you're smart you'll find a way to adapt. Not necessarily. When 100,000 jobs become 10,000, maybe 10,000 people are going to manage to get by, but what about the other 90,000? "Finding a niche" doesn't always work, and a lot of very smart people can lose out just through chance.

    Don't believe me? Prior to the 90s intelligence and technical brilliance more often got you a job at Radio Shack than at IBM. There are generations of people with your natural talents who were unable to find their "niche" just because it didn't really exist.
  • Historically.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LordOfYourPants ( 145342 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @09:25PM (#10969892)
    Just out of curiosity, is this the first time in our history that a group of workers have put themselves out of business by collectively creating tools to put themselves out of business?

    It seems like a fine line in definition between 1) being supplanted by new technology to automate things you were doing before and 2) putting yourself out of work by doing your job well.

    This isn't like a loom being created by someone else to put knitters out of business, this is like a knitter knitting a loom that could, in turn, knit other sweaters or auto-generate looms or something along those lines.
  • by Eskarel ( 565631 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @09:29PM (#10969939)
    1) Military jobs, if you think that AI is going to be good enough to have computers acting as soldiers any time soon then you either have a really unrealistic view of AI develop or you have an incredibly disrespect for what it takes to be a soldier. Added to that no one is going to trust intelligent robots with guns for a very long time. The military will probably end up using machines more rather than less(possibly to their detriment but that's another topic), but they'll still have to be controlled by someone.

    2, 3) Construction and Manufacturing. Possibly though again AI is a long way off. I think this may eventually happen though.

    4, 5) Service jobs are a bad idea for automation. It could be done, but won't be in anything but the cheapest of places. People want to buy from other people, get support from other people(preferably ones who speak their native language). I think it will be tried in a few places, but eventually companies will work out that people hate it and only places which would have paid you minimum wage will use it.

    6) Drug testing. Unless you know something I don't this isn't even close to ready yet either. Drugs still need to be tested on people to see what actually happens as opposed to what is supposed to happen, and that requires a doctor, there is no script for doctor which works 100% of the time, if there were anyone could do it. As for research, as c omputers are not particularly good at innovation(seeing something other than what they're specifically testing for) it wouldn't be a very efficient process.

    The jobs which get replaced are jobs which require repetetive manual labor(robots), or which can be predicted entirely and do not deal with people(scripts).

    In general it is a fallacy to believe technology is the solution to every problem, or that it ever will be or should be. There is value in having a person do a job, even a job which you think is pointless and stupid, because people want to deal with other people.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @09:38PM (#10970015)
    Ya right. The guys I replaced got tossed out with the Linux boxes. Now that we are a WinTel shop, I am the only IT Staff ( officially, I'm in finance. These folks are scary...), mostly writing reports and plugins for the software we have. Up to date, automated. Deployment from the App server, automated. Need to bring in a new machine? Bring in XP box, drop CD in drive, let scripts run, automated.
    I do a job that needed 2 of your "bearded guru"'s. Wish they would pay me that way...
  • I agree, in that it's actually going to create more jobs, and those jobs will be better-paying.

    ... or would anybody rather have Mabel manually switching your phone calls? Sure, she's been replaced by a computer, but this was a good thing.

    Oh, and I won't stand in line to scan my own groceries.

    The computer, far from killing off jobs as was once predicted, has created jobs. Just look at its' side-effects in the book-publishing industry. Or the reams and reams of paper used in what was supposed to be the "paperless office" of the future.

    About the only thing that hopefully will go away is the need to have MCSEs around to keep "testing" patches.

    Patch management - what a term. 5 years ago, it would have meant biker gangs deciding who could become a full-patch member, not some PFY sitting around downloading fixes to Windows boxes.

  • by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @09:54PM (#10970137) Homepage Journal
    In IT about 75% of the lifecycle costs of a unit of 'something' is labor. Automation will pushed harder and harder into these environments until that number comes down. WAY DOWN. WAY WAY DOWN.

    In autmotive, only about 8-9% of the total vehicle cost is labor. What IS enormously expensive though is pension costs. Pension costs cost about $1400/unit, more than the cost of steel.

    In Defense labor costs are plummeting and pension overhang is enormous. Take a look at the stock performance of Lockheed Martin. In this war economy LMT should be printing money, but it's not because of it's huge pension overhang liability.

    You dudes are not unionized and with the stroke of a pen your pensions can be eliminated. So companies have zero incentive to worry about retaining you and every reason to slash headcount by any means necessary. Couple this with the FACT, not the impression that most server infrastructures are used, at best, 30-40% on a rolling average basis and you start to see an enormous rationale for companies to reaggregate all their servers into big mega clusters that look like th mainframes of yore. Today if your support ratio is 40 servers per headcount you can expect that to increase by a factor of 10 as more and more server farms are collapsed into larger and larger servers with a large number of LPARs on each.

    And those jobs will be sent overseas to Bangalore, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and eventually China bolstered by yet more automation.

    I think 50% reduction in operations staff is a conservative estimate. I think it will be more like 90% in two decades.
  • by Soldevi ( 776054 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @10:00PM (#10970185)
    Users will never get smarter. As long as their jobs exist, I'll have to keep fixing the things they get themselves into.
  • by .milfox ( 75510 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @10:26PM (#10970374)
    I dunno about you, but nowadays 'scanning your own groceries' in supermarkets is becoming more and more common. :P

    They're replacing every 4 grocery clerk with just 1 and a bunch of self-scan stands in a lot of places. So I'd call that jobs dissapearing.

  • Re:Historically.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kiddygrinder ( 605598 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @10:31PM (#10970403)
    There are a lot of jobs that can be done "too" well,
    Police Force
    Exterminators
    Telemarketing (hopefully)
    Just off the top of my head. Seems unlikely that any of these are going out of business soon though, So i doubt IT positions are in any immidiate danger
  • Re:Historically.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mochan_s ( 536939 ) on Wednesday December 01, 2004 @10:52PM (#10970552)
    Well, in that regard doctors shouldn't cure their patients. If they are cured then the doctor's services are no longer needed! I think the workers have created tools so that they don't have to repeatedly do tedious processes over and over again.
  • by quarkscat ( 697644 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @01:19AM (#10971622)
    This is the spector of "obsolesence" to be held
    over those countries that now have the USA's
    outsourced IT jobs -- in 15 - 20 years, they, too,
    will be looking for new employment (if they don't
    keep their pricing structure competitive with
    what the market will be "willing" to pay.)

    I would be very happy for the (parent) to tell
    me exactly how "entertainment and learning" will
    be "gainful employment". The last time I checked,
    the USA was making a decidedly right wing turn
    away from the public social safety net, populism,
    or any government provided services. The last
    time I checked, communism has fallen out of favor
    in the (former) USSR and the PRC -- only DPRNK
    and Castro's Cuba have survived (barely). What
    you are really saying is that the "gentrified"
    senior managers, corporate officers, and major
    shareholders of the still successful IT companies
    will be living the "life of Reilly", while the
    peons will be providing all the super-cheap
    (former IT labor force) will be doing all their
    domestic work. (Why immigrate to China or India,
    when you can get really, really cheap domestic
    servants here in the USA?) Certainly explains
    the massive influx of illegal aliens AFTER 9-11,
    based upon your "blue skies" scenario.
  • by melted ( 227442 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @01:23AM (#10971641) Homepage
    They call themselves "researchers". I doubt they know the meaning of this word. :0) One of those Gartner "researches" once came over presenting his "research". The slices on his pie charts showing market share distribution summed up to 108%, at which point he was laughed at and folks started leaving the conference room. I sometimes envy these fellas. They pull numbers out of their asses and sell them for big bucks to large corporations without even a trace of responsibility or accountability. They don't even specify the margin of error of their predictions. I guess that would be too much of a liability.
  • by ip_fired ( 730445 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @02:42AM (#10971984) Homepage
    Please tell us where you are getting your facts. I'm a little skeptical with your figures.

    For example, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, they claim that the unemployment rate is 5.5%. And as for adult workers:
    In October, the unemployment rates for the major worker groups--adult men (4.9 percent), adult women (4.8 percent)
    5.5% != 50%

    Now I know you said full-time employment, but are there really that many part time jobs that adults work? Perhaps it's just different where I live, but usually teenagers work those jobs.

    Housing costs have increased 170% in the last two years.

    My housing costs have stayed the same for the past 2 years. Again, are these national statistics?

    Before the moderators start painting you all noble for sticking up for the low-income wage earner (which I am, don't get me wrong. I make $10 as a Java developer, yay for student slave labor!) post where you get your numbers.

    After all, 93.53% of all statistics are made up on the spot :).
  • by esarjeant ( 100503 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @10:13AM (#10973636) Homepage
    Unfortunately, something not considered is the cumulative affect of new technologies on the workforce. In the larger scheme of things, while a robot can do the work of 10 men it requires 2 men to maintain it and 20 men to build it.

    Thus, *more* jobs are created as a result of technology.

    In the area of IT specifically, new technologies will require new workforces to imagine and build them. Another new segment will include those who train customers on how to use them, and yet another new segment will be the workers who embrace them.

    While the US certainly has economic issues, I'm not convinced in the long haul that jobs are going to be the crux of the problem. Unemployment has remained fairly steady, and wages have actually kept pace with inflation fairly well. The value of our dollar is the ultimate deciding factor, if we fall signficantly more in relation to other currency there will need to be a resurgance in the American manufacturing industry.

egrep -n '^[a-z].*\(' $ | sort -t':' +2.0

Working...