STEM Careers

...now browsing by category

 

Cisco’s Collaboration Services Incubation Model

Sunday, June 6th, 2010

Cisco is committed to delivering the vast majority of its value-added services through partners. It has traditionally kept its own consulting units very small and used them primarily to support its partners. The company, however, has dramatically expanded its push into dozens of new, increasingly complex and leading-edge markets. It is, for example, currently targeting about 40 “market adjacencies”—new segments that, while complementary to its core networking markets, have the potential of growing into fundamentally new, high-growth markets.

Some of these adjacencies, such as Telepresence and Smart Cities, are relatively new market opportunities. Others, such as virtualized servers and collaboration software, are well established markets that are already occupied by entrenched competitors. The vast majority of these adjacencies, however, share some common needs. Most, for example, require extensive services, including:

  • Evangelism, both around the value of the technologies themselves and also around the value that Cisco—a traditionally self-confessed “box pusher”—can deliver relative to other providers;
  • Consulting services, around everything from identifying and quantifying the business value of the solution, to architecting and integrating it and managing organizational change; and
  • Managed services to implement, operate, manage and pay for these solutions, including delivery of software-as-a-service and utility-based pricing.

But as important as it is to provide these services, Cisco had to manage them within the context of a commitment that it made from the earliest days of the company—to establish deep partnerships with, create markets for and avoid competing with its channel partners. As I discussed in a 2008 report, “Cisco Services 3.0—Transforming Product Support into a Competitive Differentiator”, the company anticipated these expanded services needs and proactively developed a strategy for addressing them. Its strategy for building and delivering services around its Collaboration offerings provide an example of this strategy in action.

Incubating New Service Offerings

As I discussed in my May 31 blog, Cisco has developed a comprehensive line of services to support its collaboration offerings—services that range from business case development though architecture design, governance and change management. Such services, however, do not spring fully formed from John Chambers’ brain. They are often:

  • Conceived, tested and tuned within the Cisco organization, where it is often the first to use its own products;
  • Incubated, catalogued and formalized by the company’s own consulting organizations; and then
  • Rolled out through, and gradually scaled across partners

Let’s begin with a brief overview of the role that two of Cisco’s in-house consulting organizations—Internet Business Services Group (IBSG) and Advanced Services (AS) play in incubating, maturing and programitizing Cisco’s services in general, and its collaboration services in particular. Then I’ll examine how Cisco’s channels organization rolls these services out through its partner channel.

Cisco has continually pioneered the use of networks in transforming organizations and redefining business models, typically beginning these experiments within its own company. A decade ago, corporate customers asked how they could use the Internet to transform their own organizations. Five years ago, they asked how to use Internet-based collaboration tools to transform their business processes. Cisco responded by redefining the company into a living case study as to how to use the Internet as the foundational infrastructure for transforming the company’s organizational and management models, creating a flat, globally distributed, agile organization that distributes decision making down to virtual teams that span the globe. (See my characterization of this transformation and its results in my January 24 and January 31 blogs.)

These in-house implementations provide invaluable learning experiences, proof points and the foundations for the methods that Cisco uses in promoting and implementing its technologies and architectures in thousands of customer organizations worldwide. The process begins with the company’s Internet Business Solutions Group (IBSG), which helps drive these in-house implementations and then applies Cisco’s learnings to a handful of Cisco’s largest, most strategic customers. This group, which consists of only about 200 thought-leader consultants, works with customers’ C-level executives to:

  • Identify promising opportunities for business and business process innovation within the customer’s specific industry and organization;
  • Create technology roadmaps that will enable business transformation; and
  • Develop business cases required to achieve buy-in from business and technology groups.

These consultants certainly provide great value to customers by identifying and creating technology roadmaps for achieving strategic advantage. They provide even greater value to Cisco, as by identifying and leading development of innovative network-based processes that have the potential of opening new markets, by creating the foundations for the business cases and process methodologies that Cisco will leverage across multiple customers and by creating long-term strategic relationships with some of the company’s most important customers. This group, however, is not intended to be a profit center (Cisco does not even bill for its service) and is not intended to scale to the needs of multiple customers (it is not likely to grow to more than a few hundred consultants). Its ultimate value is in creating new business opportunities and incubating new services that will be mined by the entire Cisco organization.

Bringing New Services to Market

The company’s Advanced Services (AS) team is the next link in Cisco’s commercialization chain. This organization is responsible for applying the learnings, business cases and methods that were developed in Cisco’s in-house and IBGS-led lighthouse implementations, out to broader range of “pre-chasm” customers. This group, which consists of about 3,000 consultants, has four primary responsibilities:

  1. Help large enterprise and service provider customers develop business cases and ROI justifications forand especially architect, implement, integrate and develop governance and change management models forpre-chasm solutions;
  2. Test, fill out, codify and bulletproof methods and best practice models for all of the processes involved in the previous bullet; and, once the solutions, methods and best practice models methods are ready for broad-market implementation;
  3. Transfer these models to, and continually update them for, Cisco’s Technical Services team (which catalogs all learnings into Cisco Methods and Customer Intelligence Platform support database) and Cisco’s partner organization; and
  4. Support channel partners’ efforts to sell, architect and manage implementations of these technologies into broader markets (see next week’s blog).

Although the 3,000 consultant AS team is tiny by the standards of IBM, HP and Accenture, it is not intended to perform the same role as these companies’ organizations. AS, unlike its IBSG sibling, is a profit center. But unlike most other vendor consulting organizations, it is not intended to develop ongoing practices around, or generate long-term revenue streams from specific technologies. It is intended to facilitate and ensure the successful implementation and adoption of new Cisco solutions within a relative handful—about 500 in total—large, “transformational” customers and to prepare these solutions for high-volume sales through Cisco’s channels. Once these jobs are completed, the AS staff dedicated to these solutions is reduced and consultants migrate to new technologies.

Given AS’s hybrid role as solution evangelist and system integrator, consultants must have deep knowledge of both the technologies and of the business objectives and business processes needs of their clients. The vast majority of these 3,000 consultants have deep skills in one or more of Cisco’s pre-chasm technologies, such as those related to collaboration, virtualized data centers and borderless networks. About half have deep understanding of the needs of specific industries in which their technologies are particularly applicable (such as healthcare, financial services and education for its communications technologies) and about half are field-based, working with specific customers on long-term projects. (Most of the others shift among individual project-based engagements with many customers.)

The value that such consultants can provide to customers is well understood. But, to truly understand the value these consulting teams provide to Cisco, one must also understand the value they provide to Cisco’s channel partners.

Addressing HP’s Industry Solutions Talent Gap

Sunday, May 23rd, 2010

This blog is an overview of the findings of my new report (hot link to offering page) in which I examine the talent requirements and recruitment and development efforts that will underlie HP’s effort to develop the type of more industry-focused value propositions and service-led go-to-market approaches discussed in my previous blog and report, both titled “HP Goes Vertical”.

My “HP Goes Vertical” blog, describes how Hewlett-Packard is likely to use EDS as a vehicle for gradually transforming the company’s entire enterprise IT operations:

  • From a horizontally-focused, engineering-centric IT products and solutions company;
  • To a consultative, industry-focused solutions company that helps customers envision and apply IT as a solution to pressing business needs.

This transformation will entail an equally momentous change in the company’s need for talent. It will have to retain tens of thousands of current employees, hire thousands of new people and radically change how it trains, goals and compensates these people. These changes are likely to forever alter a corporate culture that has been 44 years in the making.

Transformation to a Services-led Workforce

Selling horizontally-focused IT product and solutions requires a deep knowledge of product capabilities and competitive differentiators as well as how modernized, efficient IT infrastructures can improve performance and reduce costs. Designing, implementing and managing these solutions require not only deep technical skills and experience, but also change management and some level of cultural skills.

Although the sale, design, implementation and management of industry-specific business solutions certainly require similar capabilities, they require much more. While technical skills remain at the center of an IT solutions engagement, these skills tend to take a back seat to deep industry and business process skills in a business solutions engagement.

Rather than leading with product capabilities and TCO, business solutions account executives typically enter accounts with well-defined points-of-view as to how the customer’s specific industry is changing and the requirements for success relative to new market, competitive and extrinsic conditions. Just as importantly, they must be able to engage in these conversations not just with the types of IT executives with whom most IT companies are used to working, but also with senior business executives.

These industry-specific solutions perspectives, however, cannot stop at the sales level. They must be infused throughout the organizations, through people that architect, build and support industry-specific solutions, and through those who define and prioritize target markets and identify and communicate compelling value propositions.

A small percentage of HP’s senior sales people and consultants (especially in CME and financial services) had such capabilities. They are, however, in a small minority. EDS had more—although not to the level of competitors like IBM or Accenture.

Enterprise Services as HP’s Business Solutions Incubator

The combined HP/EDS company has already begun to marshal its best business solutions-based talent across all groups, identify those industry segments in which it has the strongest capabilities and most compelling value propositions, and identify and assign the best qualified salespeople to the most promising accounts in each of these segments.

Although HP has some such talent in all parts of its Enterprise Business Group (not to speak of in its Imaging and Printing and Personal Systems Groups), the vast majority of such capabilities reside in the company’s Enterprise Services team, which houses most of the EDS business and people.

Given this, I believe HP will use this organization—particularly its sales and service delivery arms—as the company’s Business Solutions Incubator. This incubator would:

  • Create, market, sell and support the company’s initial service-led industry solutions;
  • Identify and disseminate consistent, repeatable best practices that could be applied across all industry groups; and most importantly
  • Develop the people most capable of architecting, building, selling and supporting them and then, disseminate best practices and people out through other parts of the organization.

Among this group’s primary talent development responsibilities would be to:

  • Define the type of talent it will need—especially across its service sales and service delivery teams;
  • Identify current employees that are most capable of filling key roles and create accelerated development and mentorship programs to help develop their skills;
  • Determine the talent—both new graduates and people with experience in other companies—that it must recruit from the outside; and
  • Restructure sales and service delivery career paths, metrics, incentives and compensation structures to create a large supply of such people.

Once it begins to “incubate” a critical mass of such professionals within the company’s services sales and service delivery arms, it must rapidly disseminate this talent out through all parts of the HP Enterprise Business organization—initially Software and Technology Services and ultimately Hardware. Once the group is on track to accomplish all this for the company’s initially targeted industries, it would probably lead the process of identifying and prioritizing HP’s move into additional verticals and sub-verticals.

IBM’s Plan to Transform University IT Education And Spur Student Enthusiasm in the Process—Summary

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

This week’s blog is an overview of the findings of my new report, “IBM’s Plan to Transform University IT Education: And Spur Student Enthusiasm in the Process” in which I examine how IBM’s university alliances have evolved to emphasize education in areas that transcend IT skills, and the long-term benefits that IBM is likely to derive from this approach.

IBM started its Academic Initiative in the 1950s when it helped universities create Information Science programs. It extended this program around specific IT and engineering skills and then, in 2003 added a Service Science, Management and Engineering (SSME) initiative.

This SSME initiative went way beyond the university efforts of IBM—as well as most other vendors—that traditionally focused on “hard” science and technology skills, such as around programming, database design, electrical engineering and physics. SSME, in contrast, emphasizes the needs for universities to encourage multi-disciplinary education and the need to develop T-shaped skills, which combine deep skills in one or more fields, plus a high-level understanding across many others. IBM worked with universities to help professors expand the focus of their own courses and departmental curricula and, most importantly, to coordinate curricula across multiple schools within a university.

It, for example, encouraged and helped schools refocus engineering education around real-world problems and train engineers to work in multi-disciplinary teams. It also challenged business schools to evolve their traditional focus on management of manufacturing companies (which now accounts for less than 20% of developed-country economies) to developing a similarly rigorous management science around services (which already account for about 60%). Some 40 universities have are going further, creating truly integrated curricula that cross traditionally sacrosanct boundaries—integrating courses across schools including management, information science, engineering and social science. A few have even begun offering new cross-school degree programs around SSME-related themes.

Smarter PlanetUsing SSME to Change the World

IBM’s huge, corporate-wide Smarter Planet initiative is, in many ways, the application of SSME to critical, real-world problems. SSME, after all, is an effort to create a science around decomposing and recomposing service-based processes, optimizing service supply chains and value chains and creating interdisciplinary research centers to design and optimize complex “service systems”—combinations of people, organizational networks and technologies that are aligned around a specific objective, such as designing and managing more livable cities, more effective healthcare systems and more efficient energy networks.

This effectively transforms SSME from an academic discipline into an instrument for addressing societal needs. It provides universities with the tools required to create education tracks and, eventually, degree programs around social goals—thereby attracting and making it easier for students who want to “change the world”. Moreover, IBM’s efforts to help shape educational curricula across Smarter Planet initiatives now transcends traditional information science, engineering and business schools to reach into areas including mathematics, architecture, healthcare management, public service, urban studies, and others.

Although such programs may not attract those students who are driven to become hedge fund managers or musicians, they do have the potential of attracting and providing “employment-ready” educations for millions of other students with similarly strong drives in other fields.

Engineering a Path to an IBM Job

Virtually all corporate university education programs share a common goal—to facilitate the education of students with the skills and perspective required to address the talent needs of the sponsor corporation, its customers and its partners. It’s easy to see the direct benefit that IBM can gain from programs that teach System z mainframe skills, that Intel can gain from multi-core architecture design programs or that Wal-Mart can derive from the University of Arkansas’ supply-chain optimization program.

But what benefits will IBM gain from encouraging universities to launch broad, non-vendor specific programs like SSME, healthcare management and transportation system design? The company’s logo isn’t on or necessarily associated with these programs, nor is IBM the first place most newly-minted graduates would look for a job to solve world hunger—unless, perhaps, you know about IBM’s Smarter Food program and its projects to increase agricultural yields, improve sustainability, reduce waste through the optimization of supply chains and improve food inspection processes.

That’s where some of IBM’s multiple university outreach programs fit in. The company has 4,000 University Ambassadors, typically IBM domain experts, who volunteer to work with universities to engage with faculty members, develop classes around real-world problems, deliver guest lectures, participate in seminars and otherwise engage with professors and students. The company also provides education tools, such as its INNOV8 Business Process Modeling (BPM) simulation game and is adapting many of its other courses to new learning methods, as through support of community portals and wikis, discussion forums, blogs, and Facebook and Twitter communities.

It also has an active university research program through which it funds professors and graduate students to conduct specialized research and all types of fellowship and internship programs in which it works with professors to identify high-potential students. It also partners with universities on IBM’s annual Battle of the Brains competition, the most recent of which attracted more than 28,000 students from 2,000 universities worldwide. These competitions engage interdisciplinary teams to tackle real world problems. The theme of these competitions? Would you guess they are typically aligned around one of IBM’s 21 (and growing) Smarter Planet themes?

IBM will certainly not attract or hire all of the graduates from SSME and Smarter Planet-theme programs. Nor does it want to. Although it hopes, and is positioning itself to identify and recruit some of the most talented graduates, its ultimate objective is to seed the world—its businesses, governments, NGOs and universities—with people who think about the world’s needs (and solutions) in much the same way that IBM does, who have been touched by IBM Ambassadors and programs, who understand IBM products, and who recognize that IBM is dedicated to addressing the same types of needs as are they.

This all leaves me with two questions. When will other corporations recognize the long-term payoffs of this broader approach to partnering with universities? And, how will they reach professors and students in the myriad fields that will be increasingly reshaped and redefined by IT?

The Great U.S. Tech Education Debate

Sunday, March 21st, 2010

On March 15, TechCrunch produced a very informative debate between Craig Barrett, former CEO of Intel and huge proponent of technology education, and Vivek Wadhwa, a Duke/UC-Berkeley professor who writes extensively on innovation, entrepreneurship and cross-border movement of technology talent. 

The debate was spawned by a Wadhwa comments in a Scientific American article that claimed there is no shortage of tech talent in the U.S. To summarize a debate, which must be read in its entirety to be fully understood, Wadhwa claims there is plenty of talent in the form of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) talent in this country. The problem is that much of this talent is in the form of postdocs (post-doctoral fellows) that are bottled up in a broken university technology education system, and in foreign-born PhDs who, once they receive degrees from U.S. universities, find it increasingly difficult or unattractive to remain in the U.S. If the artificial economic and political restraints were removed, and STEM PhDs were actually paid what they were worth, this talent would be unleashed and produce the type of innovation and jobs that the U.S. so desperately needs.

Barrett views things differently. Although he acknowledges that some postdoc PhD’s do not achieve their commercial market potential, he claims that this is due to their decisions to dedicate their efforts to the long, uncertain process of becoming tenured professors at research universities, rather than working at corporations. In his view, the real problem lies in our K-12 education system, which, due largely to the lack of qualified science and mathematics teachers, fails to ignite children’s’ imaginations around the opportunities in these disciplines and fails to provide a foundational knowledge for university study.

Wadhwa certainly acknowledges the limitations in the U.S. K-12 education system and the need to create “excitement about science and engineering at the national level and motivate our best and brightest to become engineers and scientists.” He, however, clams that the biggest problem is pay. The scientific community in general and the educational system in particular, simply do not pay enough to retain the best talent. These people are lured by the huge the huge rewards promised by the financial industry (such as becoming venture capitalists or investment bank “quants “), rather than become research scientists who drive U.S. innovation.

My Interpretation

While the debate is fascinating, it appears to me that Wadhwa over-generalizes the admittedly disturbing dilemma of postdocs. Just because some STEM PhDs remain in poorly paid fellowships (with hopes of earning valued professorships) rather than going to industry, it does not necessarily mean either that:

  • There are not enough jobs for STEM graduates; or that
  • STEM professions do not pay competitively.

True, not all STEM PhDs can become professors at prestigious research universities. On other hand, not all law school graduates can win U.S. Supreme Court clerkships or highly paid posts at premier white shoe law firms. That, however, does not stop students from overwhelming law school admissions offices. Nor do the short odds of becoming professional athletes, actors or musicians prevent millions of young adults from aspiring to these careers.

Even if there are not enough tenured professorships, PhDs who do need jobs can always “stoop” to work in the private sector. Nor should we confine the analysis of STEM jobs to PhDs. There are, after all, far more Bachelor and Master-level STEM graduates than there are PhDs. Most statistics show that newly minted STEM graduates have higher employment rates than other job categories (even during the recession) and that by far, the largest percentage of unfilled jobs utilize STEM-related skills. Moreover, starting salaries for these graduates remain among the highest of those for all degrees. As shown in a March 2010 Association of Colleges and Employers study, for example, engineering and IT jobs account for all ten of the top ten earning degrees. 

Although some segments of the financial services industry certainly pay more for a handful of the best graduates from the best schools, this cannot be viewed as the standard for all STEM jobs—just as Wall Street law firm salaries cannot be viewed as the standards for all JDs from all law schools. These numbers are too small, and their selection criteria too limited to apply to all graduates.

In sum, I generally agree with Craig Barrett that most people—especially young people—are driven as much by their passions as by the immediate opportunities for monetary rewards. There are, however, limits to this idealism. Pay must yield reasonably comfortable lifestyles and must at least be in the same ballpark as reasonably competitive fields. Although most STEM careers probably meet these criteria (except when compared with financial services, professional sports or entertainment), the big exception is in K-12 STEM education.

Unfortunately, it will take much more than competitive salaries to fix this country’s K-12 education system. Its problems are far too complex and ingrained to be solved by the education community alone. As I have discussed in many of my articles, solving these problems will require a huge amount of assistance from the private sector.

A number of private sector companies—especially IT companies, like Intel, Microsoft and IBM—are already doing great work in helping to improve education at all levels, from K through graduate schools. They are giving schools some of the tools and the training required to improve teaching and learning and helping them improve STEM curricula.

Some are even attempting to address the intense social and peer pressures against becoming “geeks” and “nerds” by demonstrating that STEM skills can be instrumental in achieving the goals of many young adults—to make a real difference in the world. As discussed in my report on IBM’s Academic Initiative, IBM is doing particularly interesting work in engaging student’s desire to make a difference in the world by showing how STEM skills are so critical to addressing some of society’s most pressing problems, as around smarter healthcare, energy and food supplies.

With all due respect to Intel’s wonderful commercials, it may be too much to hope to persuade kids to view scientists, engineers and mathematicians with the same admiration and awe as rock stars or professional athletes. It may, however, be possible to engage at least some part of their minds, psyches and self esteem around the idea of helping the world solve real problems. Perhaps someday, children focused on such missions may even earn the respect, if not necessarily the admiration, of their peers.

The Economic, Competitive, Social and Political Implications of KPO

Sunday, March 14th, 2010

My last three blogs (The Growth of Knowledge Process Outsourcing, Evalueserve’s KPO Service Offerings, Understanding Evalueserve’s KPO Business) discussed the emergence and rapid growth and evolution of the Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) industry and market. As I discussed, this industry, which was borne of and enabled by the boom in IT Services offshoring, takes the offshoring of services into totally new directions. The most basic of this work extends the IT industry’s experience in outsourcing standardized, structured, rules-based tasks into a number of more broadly defined, less structured and more discretionary functions.

The Evolution of Offshorable Services Jobs

More importantly, just as IT outsourcing progressed up the value chain from ministerial jobs, such as the maintenance of old legacy application into more conceptual work, such as in architecting of distributed Internet-based applications, so too is the outsourcing of a broad range of other “knowledge-based functions”. KPO is rapidly extending the offshoring of knowledge-based services:

  • Beyond jobs that consist of standardized, repeatable processes, are easy to learn and can be readily monitored and tracked (such as application maintenance and call center operator);
  • To those that require analytical (like financial and market analysis), conceptual (like legal research and architectural design) and, in some instances, innovative (scientific research and industrial design) skills. These services are typically less structured and manageable, entail greater discretion and, increasingly, require ongoing coordination with professionals in other countries.

Services Continunium

But to understand the real implications of KPO, you must combine the rapid growth in the type and number of jobs that can be performed offshore, with the:

  • Rapid growth in the number of foreign—and declining number of U.S.—professionals with science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) training;
  • New information technology and communications (ITC) capabilities that allow work to be seamlessly performed and transferred across geographies and time zones; and
  • New management and collaboration practices that permit business processes to be componentized and workers from remote locations to seamless collaborate on complex tasks.

The result, as Princeton University’s Alan Blinder concluded in a 2007 study that was corroborated by an independent Harvard Business School study—between 21% and 42% of U.S. jobs have the potential of being outsourced. (Not that they necessarily will be outsourced, but that they are potentially outsourceable.) And, unlike the case with manufacturing jobs before them, the majority of these new positions are knowledge jobs that typically require college degrees.

Opportunities for U.S. Knowledge Workers

What does the growth and changing nature of knowledge outsourcing in general, and KPO in particular, mean for U.S. knowledge workers? Two things:

  • Regardless of whether Blinder and HBS’s numbers are right, the U.S. will undoubtedly lose millions of traditionally secure white collar jobs to offshore providers over the next decade; and
  • Although Indian providers will continue to source many jobs offshore, even they will be hiring American workers as firms including Evalueserve, Infosys, Wipro and Tata Consulting Services open, acquire and expand delivery centers in the United States.

What does all this mean to current and prospective U.S. knowledge workers? As I have discussed in recent posts, the U.S. will always retain millions of existing knowledge jobs and will continue to produce millions of new ones. The difference is that employers will look for very different types of skills than in the past. Those workers that Thomas Friedman calls “the average practitioners”—those people who perform routine tasks and those that wait for work to be handed to them—are becoming an endangered species.

Knowledge workers that hope to qualify for the secure jobs of the future—both in domestic and offshore firms—will require different sets of skills than those of Friedman’s average practitioners. As discussed in my report IT Companies as Catalysts in Creating the 21st Century Workforce (click here to see an excerpt or  here to request a free copy of the full report), these workers must be able to innovate, analyze and communicate. They must increasingly possess a new set of core skills that include:

  • IT, not necessarily in developing and managing IT environments, but in understanding which IT tools are most applicable to a chosen field and how to apply them to deliver business value;
  • Communications, the combination of writing, speaking, presentation (and optionally others, such as multimedia and video) that will be so essential in selling one’s ideas;
  • Internet (to the extent that such skills will not be innate in new-generation workers), which provides all employees complete access to all the information they need and the social networking tools and techniques that will be increasingly required to find allies, build consensus and effectively sell one’s ideas (both within and outside of their organizations); and
  • Mathematics (particularly analytic techniques and supporting capabilities such as statistics, modeling and simulations) to help workers derive true insight from, and develop innovative solutions based on the huge volumes of digital information that are becoming available to all knowledge workers in all disciplines.

People who possess such skills will produce higher value for their employers (whether domestic or foreign), enjoy higher salaries and better job security and will be in greater demand by other companies. Those that lack such skills will suffer the opposite fate

Understanding Evalueserve’s KPO Business

Sunday, March 7th, 2010

My last two blogs defined and explained the nature and dynamics of the KPO industry and provided a relatively representative overview of range of services provided by profiling the offerings of the industry leader Evalueserve. But understanding the breadth of KPO offerings is one thing. Understanding the business models by which firms operate, the value they provide to clients and the implications for U.S. knowledge workers is something totally different.

Service and Employee Management

Evalueserve was founded in 2000 and now offers eight different KPO offerings (in addition to its Circle of Experts program. Although this type of growth is rapid and challenging, the company times its new offerings carefully (as by not launching a new offering until each current offering has a minimum staff of 100 analysts) to ensure that it maintains critical mass and quality of service in each of these offerings.

This growth has resulted in an employee base of 2,100 people, 1,750 of whom are billable to clients. These billable employees were initially based in India, where the vast majority of continue reside. However, the company has opened three additional delivery centers. Its Chinese and Chilean centers (established in 2005 and 2006) employ about 175 people each and its Romanian center (opened in 2008), an additional 40. Although many of these people have decent levels of domain knowledge and provide some substantive services (such as reviewing and analyzing financial reports), their primary role is to provide local language support and real-time communications with regional clients:

  • China supports clients in Japan, Korea, China and other East-Asian countries;
  • Chile supports Spanish-speaking clients worldwide, although primarily in the Americas; and
  • Romania supports those in Germany, Russia and Eastern Europe.

Who are these billable people? Most are research associates, analysts and managers/team leaders. They average 27 to 28 years old and have 3-to-5 years of post-high school education (at least a bachelors, and usually a masters degree). Although most are fresh out of school, Evalueserve does hire some people with 5 or more years experience as senior analysts or managers. Even though the company assigns each employee a “Career Manager”, many employees leave within 3 years. These employees tend to view Evalueserve not as a permanent home, but as a valuable stepping stone where they can develop the skills and experience that will be required for a career in a large global corporation. Many such employees leave the company to pursue higher education. On the other hand, those who remain after 3 years consider the KPO industry to be their “home” and tend to work in it for a much longer period of time.

Evalueserve has close to 60 professional employees in the U.S. and Western Europe, although they are primarily sales and client relationship managers. Most have consultative sales backgrounds in market research, IT consulting and related services. The company plans to open delivery centers in North America and Europe (see below).

Addressing Client Needs

Evalueserve’s 1,000+ clients range from the largest corporations to modest-size professional service firms and span virtually all industries, from consumer goods to life sciences and manufacturing to media. The vast majority of these clients are from Western Europe (40% of the company’s revenues) and North America (40%), with the remaining 20% spread across Asia and Latin America. While the breadth of its client base is large, 80% of its revenues come from only the top 50 clients and two-thirds is derived from only three industries—banking/financial services, technology and telecom, and healthcare. The vast majority of these clients originally came to Evalueserve for the expected reason—to reduce costs through labor arbitrage—and many of these companies subscribe to only a single service offering and view Evalueserve as a “mere vendor”.

This, however, is beginning to change. A few companies are leveraging existing relationships, such as for market research, into additional services (e.g., business research or marketing support). Meanwhile, some clients are beginning to view the provider as a true business partner, rather than as a vendor. Interestingly, this later trend appears to be determined primarily along departmental lines, rather than by industry or company size. Strategy and intellectual property departments and consulting firms are increasingly viewing Evalueserve as more of a partner whereas financial departments, banks and market research departments still tend to view it primarily as a vendor.

Most clients, however, are beginning to look to KPO for more than labor arbitrage. Some look to it as a vehicle for revenue enhancement, such as by using sales management services to improve sales productivity or by leveraging investment and legal research capabilities to enable banks to cover more companies and law firms to gradually expand into new specializations.

A growing number of U.S. and European clients are also leveraging Evalueserve’s global presence to facilitate expansion into higher growth emerging country markets in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe—using its services to research and evaluate new market opportunities, gain a better understanding of local customers, partners and legal/regulatory requirements and to insure protection of intellectual property. In fact, approximately 15% of Evalueserve’s revenue now comes from researching emerging countries (particularly China and India).

Evalueserve recruits the vast majority of its personnel with skills in providing broad, horizontal, cross-industry services—skills for which the vast majority of its clients retain the company. Having said this, analysts develop industry-specific knowledge through ongoing work with clients and the company now claims that a growing number of its people are developing demonstrable skills in its three core verticals: banking/financial services, technology and telecom, and healthcare. If a client requires particularly deep industry skills, the firm can tap its rapidly expanding Circle of Experts. Furthermore, using these three verticals as the springboard, it is now developing expertise in other verticals such as energy (oil, gas and, increasingly, renewables) and consumer packaged goods.

The recession took its toll on KPO, along with all other offshore and outsourcing services. The bad news is that after years of 70% annual growth, KPO revenue growth effectively ground to a halt from September 2008 to August 2009. The good news is that industry revenue did not actually fall. In fact, it still grew by 3%-5%! Even financial services revenues held steady for the entire industry.

Evalueserve even sees something of a silver lining in this no-growth year, both for itself and for the KPO industry at large. After years of growing at an unsustainable rate, the company finally had a chance to cut some fat from the organization and to shed the bottom 5% of its workforce. This thinning, combined with the growing availability (not to speak of slightly lower cost) of more senior people, also allowed the firm to hire more experienced talent.

In some ways, the recession has also improved Evalueserve’s competitive position. Its size and diverse line of services gave it an advantage over its legion of smaller, more specialized rivals. More importantly, the recession has slowed the KPO progress of the leading Indian IT service providers and prompted them to dedicate their efforts to retaining their core businesses rather than investing in the very different research and especially sales skills required for KPO.

Although Evaluserve, like many other firms, is seeing encouraging signs of growth, especially from companies looking to expand capabilities without taking on the commitment of hiring full-time employees. This being said, it does have one important concern—a growth in protectionism that is likely to grow as long as unemployment remains high. Although it will be tough to avoid this highly emotional issue, Evalueserve does at least have one other advantage over its larger offshore service rivals—its U.S. business is not dependent on H1B visas,  and when it does open its U.S. delivery center, it will staff it with Americans.

Opportunities for U.S. Knowledge Workers

Evalueserve, like many of the big Indian IT services companies before it, is now looking to complement its offshore and nearshore delivery facilities with onshore centers located near its largest clients. These centers, which are currently planned for the U.S. and Western Europe, will house more senior people than the company’s offshore and nearshore centers.

While offshore analysts typically have 3-5 years experience, onshore Research Architects and Solution Architects will be seasoned professionals. They will often have graduate degrees (MBAs, MS in engineering and even PhDs) and 10 or more years experience in their disciplines. They will also play very different roles. Rather than performing analysis, they will evaluate client needs, design research requirements, manage projects, present findings to clients and deliver additional levels of value, such as by interpreting research results within the context of market and industry realities and engaging in strategic dialogs with clients. They will also play demand creation roles, as by working with Account Executives to evaluate and promote additional opportunities within existing accounts.

The company plans to begin hiring these new onshore professionals (initially in financial services and heath care, with other disciplines following), when it becomes confident that the North American and Western European economies are truly on the mend.

What does all this mean for U.S. and European knowledge workers? At a very high level, offshore KPO services will pull growing numbers of service jobs—especially lower-skilled, more standardized and non-customer-facing jobs—out of the U.S. and other developed countries. It will, however, create smaller numbers of higher-skilled, more customer facing, and higher-paying jobs in these countries. This, however, is only the tip of a very large, very deep iceberg. I will examine the broader implications of the globalization of knowledge services in my March 14 blog, tentatively titled, “The Economic, Competitive, Social and Political Implications of KPO”.

The Jobs of Today—and Tomorrow

Sunday, February 14th, 2010

I have written extensively about the jobs of tomorrow and the critical role of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) skills in preparing applicants for these jobs. (See, for example, my recently completed free report,IT Companies as Catalysts in Creating the 21st Century Workforce.“) As explained in a new CareerCast study, these skills also critical in preparing applicants for the jobs of today—or at least many of the “best jobs”.

“Best Jobs”

What are these “best jobs” and what makes them “the best”? The study, which compiles U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data, evaluates jobs in terms of five criteria:

  1. Stress;
  2. Working environment;
  3. Physical demands;
  4. Income and growth potential; and
  5. Hiring outlook.

While not necessarily the highest skilled (neurosurgeon, corporate M&A lawyer), highest paying (bond trader, hedge fund manager) or most glamorous (movie star, professional athlete), these jobs are available in reasonably high numbers and are available to people with relatively moderate (typically a four-year degree) degree of education.

Just what are these jobs? The top ten are, in descending order: actuary, software engineer, computer systems analyst, biologist, historian, mathematician, paralegal assistant, statistician, accountant and dental hygienist. All but two (historian and paralegal) require some form of specialized STEM education.

Perhaps none of these jobs are quite your cup of tea. Or, perhaps unlike CareerCast, you do not weigh each of the five criteria equally. You may, for example, be motivated primarily by income and advancement potential, or you may actually prefer a physically demanding job.

No worries. There are dozens of other jobs. But be forewarned: 37 of the CareerCast’s 50 “best jobs” (out of a total 200 ranked jobs) require some form of explicit math, science or technology background. Moreover, as I have discussed in previous blogs, a number of the 13 additional jobs (such as historian, sociologist, anthropologist and archeologist) increasingly require specialized IT and math skills, such as in compiling and analyzing huge quantities of information and data.  

Of course, this doesn’t suggest that ALL jobs that are intellectually, emotionally and financially rewarding require STEM educations. You can, for example, become a philosopher (11), attorney (80), author (74), clergyman (96) or artist (104), although most such professions require extensive training or specialized skills. There are also somewhat lower skill jobs. You can be a damn good paralegal (7), medical records technician (20), purchasing agent (40), jeweler (61) or actor (163) with little or no math or science training and few, if any, computer skills. But if you want to find jobs with no specialized training requirements or long apprentices, you generally have to move much further down the CareerCast list into lower-skill, more physical and/or more repetitive jobs such as waitperson (125), bus driver (137), retail salesperson (142) or mail carrier (191). And if you really want to live on the edge (literally and figuratively), you can always become a lumberjack (199) or roustabout (200).

Skills Requirements

But regardless of which type of career you choose, the work environment of the 21st century will not be like that of the 20th century. Jobs will remain scarce for at least the next five years, more positions will become temporary or freelance, and a growing number of jobs will be devalued or disappear as a result of increasingly pervasive globalization of knowledge work and the automation of functions that used to require human discretion and labor.

Success in this new environment will require much more than strong, specialized domain skills (whether STEM-based or not). Traditional left-brain analytical skills will, in fact, become the ante required for success in tomorrow’s jobs. Knowledge workers who hope to capture and retain the best, highest-value and most secure jobs must also complement these capabilities with increasingly large doses of left-brained conceptual and empathic skills. And, with all due respect to technophobes, virtually all high-value knowledge jobs will also require at least basic quantitative, statistical and IT skills. IT, in fact, will increasingly have to become the second language for almost all 21st century knowledge workers.

The Government’s Efforts to Bridge Schools’ STEM Gap

Sunday, February 7th, 2010

I have written extensively about the U.S.’s urgent need to retool its workforce to compete in the Global Knowledge Economy of the 21st century, and of the particularly critical need for a whole new level of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) literacy. Although this need must be addressed at all education levels, from primary school through universities and continually through one’s career, the biggest and most pressing gap lies in the formative years, from elementary school through high school.

Just how big is this gap? U.S. 15-year olds now rank a dismal 21st in the world in science and 25th in math. It is similarly drawing up the bottom in high school completion, where the 2006 PISA study ranks it 21st out of 27 OECD countries. Meanwhile, at a time when virtually every knowledge-based career requires strong IT skills, most U.S. middle and high school computer classes focus on teaching rudimentary Windows, word processing and spreadsheet usage, rather than the value of IT in all disciplines and occupations. But our educational prowess relative to OECD countries is one thing. We are now even getting our STEM educational clocks cleaned by China, where:

  • Math, science (not to speak of foreign language) skills are the primary focus of the educational system, from elementary school, all the way through universities;
  • IT is integrated into math and other high school curricula, rather than taught as a standalone set of skills;
  • College STEM graduation rates far exceed those in the U.S.; and even where
  • Adult literacy rates (over 90%) are higher than in the U.S. (86%).

In reality, how could we hope for much more when most teachers graduate in the bottom quartile of their college classes, only 39% of 8th grade math teachers and 7% of science teachers even majored in the subjects they are teaching and children devote so little time to homework. Compare this again with China, where, all math and science teachers must have degrees in these subjects, school years are longer and students devote twice as many hours to homework as their U.S. counterparts.

Government Progress

Although this is all pretty grim, we are seeing progress. And it is coming from the most unlikely of places—the U.S. government. While every U.S. president since Dwight Eisenhower has tried to create a national education program, virtually every effort has failed in Congress. Sure, George W. Bush managed to get No Child Left Behind through Congress, the law allows every state to set their own standards. And, 15 states that fell short of the law’s performance requirements found a creative way of staying in compliance—they simply lowered the scores required to demonstrate proficiency.

Although a couple of multistate organizations, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officials, are making some progress in creating a voluntary set of common standards for Math and English education, Barack Obama shares his predecessor’s view of the need for national action. However, he understands (all too well) the perils of relying on Congress. He, therefore, gave Arne Duncan, his Education Secretary, unprecedented power and an unprecedented pool of money ($4.35 billion) to incent states to pursue innovative strategies for recruiting, credentialing, rewarding, and retaining teachers. Although this Race to the Top initiative will cover all subjects, it is particularly skewed to STEM education.

Obama would like to do much more to address many of the fundamental deficiencies of the current educational system. Yet he recognizes the formidable political, fiscal and practical constraints to enacting true educational reform. Therefore, he is attempting to enlist the private sector to fund and drive additional programs.

Enlisting Private Sector Help

In November, OBama announced a new campaign to encourage businesses and not-for-profit organizations to help enhance science, technology, engineering and math education in middle and high schools. This Educate to Innovate program is focused on encouraging companies and non-profits to contribute $250 million worth of time, money and volunteers to create extracurricular education programs to expand children’s interest in and knowledge of STEM. As reported in the New York Times, some of the first of what are expected to grow into a larger number of commitments include:

  • Discovery Communications is sponsoring two hours of commercial-free, after-school Science Channel programming to be targeted at middle school students;
  • Science and engineering societies’ commitments to provide volunteers to work with children;
  • PBS will incorporate a science focus into two years of Sesame Street programming;
  • Time Warner Cable, which has committed to devoting 80% of all its philanthropic efforts to science and math education, will also create and promote a web site that will provide a searchable directory of local science activities;
  • Sony will donate 1,000 PlayStation 3 game consoles and LittleBigPlanet educational games to libraries and community organizations and fund a $300,000 contest to incent game designers to develop science- and math-based games that Sony will distribute free; and
  • The Jack D. Hidary and MacArthur Foundations are working with the National Science Teachers Association and American Chemical Society to launch a website (http://www.nationallabday.org/) to create a Web site that will match volunteer scientists with teachers looking for assistance in teaching specific areas.

Intel, which already has one of the largest and most active STEM education initiatives in the world (which I’ll discuss in some future blogs), is playing a particularly central role in this imitative. It is launching a ten-year, $200 million cash and in-kind campaign to help train more than 100,000 U.S. math and science teachers and is committing its own employees to volunteer 100,000 hours to improving STEM education. Its former chairman, Craig Barrett, will also work with prominent technology CEOs and former astronaut Sally Ride, to encourage other corporations and foundations to fund and participate in efforts to improve STEM education.

Promising First Steps

The bad news is that U.S. educational system (especially elementary, middle and high school) has dug itself into a huge hole. It is not vaguely prepared to teach the types of skills that tomorrow’s workers will need to compete in an increasingly global economy that is being redefined by information and communications technology.

The good news is that virtually everybody—private sector and public sector and Democrat and Republican—recognizes these deficiencies and the urgency of addressing them. George W. Bush—with solid bipartisan support—took an important first step (No Child Left Behind) in addressing these needs. Barack Obama, without waiting for Congress, has taken two more. Race to the Top provides schools with compelling incentives to reinvent policies and processes. Educate to Innovate enlists the private sector to help identify, enable and fund some of these changes. Both focus on those areas that are in greatest need of change—how middle and high school students are exposed to and taught math and science.

Ideally, politicians of both parties will again come together to acknowledge this critical need and address it in a comprehensive and enlightened manner. But even if not, Educate to Innovate, in particular, sets an important precedent as:

  • An effort to encourage and focus the efforts of the private sector (especially information companies and foundations) around a common goal.

This will hopefully be the first of many initiatives in which government attempts to mobilize the private sector to address critical societal issues.

The Payoffs of Cisco’s Globalization Odyssey

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

In my last blog, I outlined Cisco’s ambitious globalization plans, its plans for establishing Cisco Globalization Center East in Bangalore as a corporate co-headquarters and its longer-term plans for building a network of globalization centers that will not only globally distribute the company’s workforce, but also its management team. This blog looks at some of the challenges Cisco faces in its globalization efforts and how it is addressing them, the opportunities its expanded global presences is creating and some of the lessons that its experiences may provide to other companies.

Challenges and Solutions

Cisco certainly faced many of the same challenges that all companies face when building a major presence in India. It had to navigate the government‘s infamous bureaucracy, compensate for and adjust to the country’s deficient infrastructure and inconsistent education system, and find a way of managing the 12½ hour time zone difference between India and the company’s California headquarters. It also had to adapt to cultural differences between Indian and Western employees. These include the difficulties that many Indian workers have delivering disappointing news and providing candid feedback, their deference to corporate executives and the disappointment and even shame they experience in adapting to the Cisco tradition of lateral organizational moves (versus promotions to higher level jobs and titles).

Cisco, like many other companies establishing an Indian presence, has addressed these traditional challenges. It faced greater challenges, however, from the tricky governance challenges that arose from the combination of two Cisco-specific issues:

  • Its highly matrixed organizational structure and its extensive use of councils and boards (see, for example, the July 2009 McKinsey & Co interview with John Chambers) which is highly dependent on frequent, often spontaneous communication and collaboration among managers and executives from all across the organization; and
  • Its decision to globally distribute its executive and management team, as well as specific functions to India and other countries.

Its first governance challenge was to ensure that all of its employees would accept and adapt to the increasingly central role that the Indian center would play in the organization. This required an immediate, high-profile validation of the role of the Indian organization and the need to incorporating it and its managers and executives into all appropriate decision processes. Cisco built the credibility of the Indian organization in three steps:

  1. Its high-profile promotion and launch of the facility as the greenest and most technologically advanced of all Cisco sites, its role as one of the company’s most important customer/partner demonstration and education centers and its being the home of what will soon be the company’s second largest R&D facility and by the actions of two particularly critical executive sponsors;
  2. The move of EVP Wim Elfrink and 20 other senior executives to Bangalore; and
  3. John Chambers’ ongoing elaboration of the importance of Globalization Center East and his hosting of Cisco’s 2008 company meeting in the complex.

The next challenge was to identify how to maintain, or adapt, the company’s traditional freewheeling, real-time communication and collaboration process when critical members of each team are located halfway around the world, with no shared work hours. Would communications patterns change or would more and more meetings be conducted (and decisions reached) without participation by remote group members?

Cisco’s own technologies, including its Unified Communications solutions, WebEx conferencing and TelePresence videoconferencing systems, certainly helped. But technologies alone are not sufficient to change established processes or corporate cultures.

Cicso began its global communications began in the normal way, trying to schedule meetings at times that were only minimally inconvenient for each party, such as 6:00, 7:00 or 8:00 AM/PM. There were, however, far too many conference calls for far too few time slots. And since there were typically far more participants in the U.S. and Europe than in India and China, calls were increasingly scheduled throughout the night (Indian time) and early Saturday mornings (Friday afternoon in California). India-based executives were getting worn out and were losing sleep and family time. Although Wim Elfrink had a Telepresence system installed in his home, this only moderately reduced the burden. Nor was Cisco prepared to provide this same, very expensive luxury/incursion for all its India-based managers and execs.

The solution? John Chambers ordered that no calls would be held after 11:00 PM in any time zone and that the burden of calls outside of work hours must be spread across geographies, so that everybody would end up making similar compromises.

The Opportunities of Globalization

While the launch of the Bangalore center presented some obstacles that had to be overcome, it also provided Cisco with some important new opportunities. As I discussed in my last blog, the first and the single most important reason for Cisco’s dramatically expanded Indian presence was to accelerate the company’s growth in Asian and other emerging markets. Cisco claims that this investment is already paying off, such as by providing a presence and allowing it to incubate Asian ecosystems that were instrumental in capturing big, strategic accounts. These include Smart Building wins in China, Smart City wins in Saudi Arabia and Smart Education wins in Qatar. (I’ll cover such projects in more depth in a future blog). It is also working on a number of other projects, such as Korea’s Songdo Smart City and Malasian WiMax (with YTL) implementations, that have the potential of creating other huge new global growth opportunities.

Cisco’s commitment to Asia has also allowed the company to extend relationships with current Indian SI partners and to create new joint market initiatives, as with Tata around security and Wipro in addressing Middle Eastern markets.

Establishing the Indian co-headquarters also gave Cisco a powerful new tool in developing a new generation of globally-aware managers and executives. The initial expansion has already contributed to globalizing the traditionally Western-centric corporate culture. Meanwhile, moving Wim Elfrink and other executives to India helped increase Cisco’s visibility into other countries and emphasize the importance the company places on doing business in emerging countries. Of course, it also provided a new high-profile opportunity to gain experience in other geographies. And, as a somewhat unexpected bonus, Cisco is already finding that many employees who transfer to India are more willing to remain in India or transfer to another Cisco emerging country site, than they are to return to San Jose.

The growing role of expats is also a critical tool in spreading the company’s culture to new offices and employees. This was initially done by sending U.S.-based employees to India. India, however, is now emerging as a training ground for Cisco employees in—and the transfer of new technologies and solutions to—other emerging countries, such as the transfer of Smart Grid and Smart Community experts and concepts from India to South Korea.

Leveraging Its Learnings

As I mentioned in my last blog, this is only the first step in Cisco’s plan to transform the company into a fully geographically distributed, global enterprise. Although it entered this expansion without a big, formal central design, Cisco has learned many lessons that will be increasingly institutionalized in future globalization efforts. It is also studying experiences of other global companies, such as Coca-Cola and, especially GE, to help facilitate its learning process.

This will not only help Cisco help itself, it will also help it to help its customers—companies that, like Cisco, recognize the need to decentralize their management structure and globalize their operations. Most companies, however, don’t have the technology, the architectural capabilities or the experience to engineer these transformations themselves. Cisco, in the spirit of its self-defined transformation from “Internet plumber” into “trusted business advisor”, is preparing to help these other companies as well as itself.

Tom Kucharvy’s 2010 Research Agenda

Sunday, January 17th, 2010

The IT Industry’s Role in Addressing the U.S.’ Technology Skills Gap: How the industry can secure its own future while providing unique value to employees, customers and society

Over the last six months, I have focused my research around two broad questions:

  • What types of skills will U.S. knowledge workers require to build careers that will deliver the highest value and be most sustainable in a global knowledge economy?
  • What must individuals, schools and corporations do to prepare for these jobs?

I recently wrote a report “IT Companies as Catalysts in Creating the 21st Century Workforce”, which I summarized in my January 11 blog. While working on it, I was particularly struck by three key conclusions:

  1. The particular risks that the IT industry will face from a paucity of required skills and the unique role the IT industry can play in creating the next generation workforce;
  2. The combination of foundation skills (including IT, Internet, math and communications) that all knowledge workers will require and how these skills can be most effectively taught and learned;
  3. The critical role that multi-faceted academic (especially university)/private sector partnerships must play in designing and delivering curricula that prepare knowledge workers for tomorrow’s careers.

I have certainly learned a lot from my research over the last six months and, hopefully, readers have valued from my posts and reports. Ultimately, however, this research ended up doing what most research does—it raised more questions than it answered. Some of these new questions are forming the foundation of my 2010 research agenda.

Here’s a peek into what I’ll be working on in 2010.

Q1 2010 Research Agenda

My 2010 research will continue to examine the changing nature of knowledge work in the 21st century and the requirements for the U.S. to build a workforce that will be truly competitive in the Global Knowledge Economy. I will, for example, drill down into a number of issues that I have touched on in my 2009 research including:

  • The skills and attributes individuals need to compete in a world in which knowledge work is increasingly defined by global competition, the automation of increasingly discretionary tasks, a deluge of data and information and the need to collaborate in increasingly fluid physical and virtual teams;
  • The relative roles of academia and the private sector in developing these skills and in creating and enabling the environments in which individuals can contribute ever higher levels of value;
  • The increasingly central role that the IT industry is playing in redefining work requirements and environments and the unprecedented opportunities for IT companies to shape the workforce in accordance with their and their customers’ needs.

Among the primary issues I plan to explore are:

  • Emerging best practices for recruiting, developing and retaining effective knowledge workforces
    • What approaches are proving to be most effective for companies—especially IT companies—in building and maintaining effective development, sales and services teams?
  • Opportunities for building high-payoff private sector/university partnerships
    • What expectations, contributions and commitments must each party bring to effective relationships, what best practices are emerging for collaborative curricula, course and platform development, research and recruiting?
  • Private sector roles in addressing primary and secondary math and science gaps
    • Although university education is critical, educators must instill interest and teach the basic math and science skills on which university educations can build. What role can IT firms play in enabling and facilitating these efforts? What rewards can they gain?
  • Using technology to improve the education process
    • Which types of technologies and techniques can be most effectively employed in schools and universities and how they can best be acquired, taught, implemented and managed?
  • The roles of IT service providers in addressing customer skills shortages
    • How can IT service providers best help clients evolve their own workforces, supplement their skills gaps and prepare new generations of business architects, technical professionals and CIOs?
  • Building and enabling an “innovation workforce”
    • What are the combinations of technology, management practices, collaborative processes and industry skills that will be required and what role can the IT industry play in developing these skills within companies, in conjunction with universities, and across ecosystems and technology and community clusters?
  • The roles of government in addressing—and exacerbating—the U.S.’s technology skills and innovation gaps
    • Can federal, state and local government organizations play productive roles in laying the foundations for addressing educational needs and enabling potential growth industries, or should they just stay out of the way?
  • The IT industry as test bed and role model for new private sector skills initiatives
    • IT vendors are among the leaders in establishing successful private sector/academic partnerships and in developing systematic employee skills development programs. What role can they play as role models for, enablers of or coaches in helping other industries?

Although my primary interest is in understanding the skills that will be required for sustainable 21st century careers, and the roles that IT companies can play in preparing U.S. knowledge workers for these careers, even I do not live on workforce development alone. After 30 years in the IT industry, I still have a deep interest in, and retain an irresistible drive to express my opinion on any of a broad range of industry-related issues. So, interspersed with blogs about jobs, skills, university programs and the globalization of knowledge work, you can also expect occasional discourses on important IT company initiatives, industry trends and especially, the unique opportunities for IT service providers to address a broad range of business and societal needs.