Outsourcing

Offshoring: Why it's an opportunity, not a threat

IT industry experts in the UK argue that offshoring shouldn't be viewed simply as a threat to domestic jobs but as an opportunity to join a global workforce.

Offshoring should not be viewed as a threat to domestic jobs but as an opportunity for tech workers to adapt to new roles as part of a global workforce, according to IT industry experts.

The practice of using overseas labour to fill certain tech roles doesn't necessarily mean a net loss of jobs, a recent debate at the BCS, the UK-based chartered institute for IT, heard.

Elizabeth Sparrow, past president of the BCS, said there is "a danger that we try to cling onto jobs as they exist today. It has not stopped evolving. We need to be looking at the jobs for tomorrow."

The BCS cited research that it said shows new jobs continue to be created onshore as other roles are sent offshore, with one piece of research claiming 750,000 jobs in finance, IT and other areas will be offshored by 2016, while a second predicts a total of 225,000 jobs will be created in cloud computing by 2015.

Business intelligence specialist Gary Nuttall said that offshoring software development doesn't have to mean the onshore staff disappear: "A number of my experiences have been on 'follow the sun' type projects, where each team involved passes on the project for development. When you turn that around the UK just becomes part of that chain. So we are talking about the threat of outsourcing software development, but it may be that we are part of doing software development for others...certainly in global organisations I've seen that."

As offshoring is a reality of modern IT, interim CIO Karim Hyatt said that there is a need for western IT staff to become more comfortable working alongside colleagues working offshore.

"I've had this experience with a highly trained Swedish group of gaming professionals and they stated that one developer in Sweden is worth three in India. But that wasn't true and they had no basis for stating that. This is the attitude that needs to very quickly change."

The way companies view offshoring is also changing, the debate heard, with Nuttall saying that companies have discovered that offshoring doesn't always save money, as while " things may seem cheaper at first, the controls also add overheads".

Companies could avoid some of these unforseen problems with offshore vendors by adopting an outcome-based approach, said Nuttall.

"I think in future contracts will go down an outcome based approach where as long as the code is produced to the required spec, does it really matter what qualifications the developer has in the past? I use the Kwik Fit analogy - if I have my exhaust replaced I go to a specialist, they give me a price and a time. I don't analyse the mechanic's qualifications or a schedule of what they are doing - all I want them to do is deliver on time and on budget and that they phone me if there is a problem."

Part of the reason that the IT industry has to accept that offshoring is here to stay, Hyatt said, is that companies are forced to look overseas to fill certain roles, as the skills are not available in their home nations.

"IT isn't viewed as cool as it was in the 70s and 80s. In the software product area you sometimes, for example in gaming, need extremely specialist and clever people. Real techies. They are difficult to find.

"If you go to India you are getting 500,000 IT graduates per year and if you go through the recruitment exercise the people are out there. So if you want a large team of developers you are more likely to be able to do it in India than the UK."

Sparrow said that offshoring could be viewed as a natural offshoot from the transnational nature of modern business.

"For me it is one example of a globalisation movement. There is work that can be done around techniques and standards around offshoring. But there is also how to work in a global setting, when perhaps the majority of your customers are not in the UK."

About

Nick Heath is chief reporter for TechRepublic UK. He writes about the technology that IT-decision makers need to know about, and the latest happenings in the European tech scene.

80 comments
joyceeevanoso
joyceeevanoso

Yes, indeed! Offshoring is not a threat, it is an opportunity. Life in this day and age is now evolving incredibly fast. Therefore, it is really inevitable that enterprises these days turn out to be exceedingly bloodthirsty as well. As a issue detail, this case is really apparent in offshore staff leasing. Nowadays, lot of companies are counting on offshore staff leasing. And yes, India is one of the best countries when it comes to offshoring. And for good reasons. India has one of the best IT and infrastructure scheme in the world. It also produces one of the largest number of graduates every year. And it also has the lowest rates charged when performing jobs. These are just some of the things that makes India number one.

victorparker
victorparker

Great blog and I'm glad that I came by this. Even I don't agree that offshoring can be a threat of any kind. It is obviously an opportunity.

Waddyranger
Waddyranger

It may be the elephant in the room for India, as I rarely see the point that the Indian inflation rate is generally around 10% or more. It's possible that for skilled IT workers, this rate is much higher (some information is here: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/india/inflation-cpi) This race to offshore appears to be a fashion, much like house prices could only increase a few years ago. Just because something is hot today, doesn't mean it will be tomorrow. These things usually appear suddenly, and few experts appear to predict the collapse, they just comment when it has happened. (Economics as the dismal science). In the US and Europe wage inflation has generally been flat or around 0.5 to 2% depending on location. Therefore, at what point does the wage disparity between India/China and the West become too small to move a team from one side of the world to the other? We may be reaching that tipping point? The Indian economy is slowing now, could this be a leading indicator that India is becoming too expensive?: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Employees-in-India-may-get-lower-salary-hike-in-2012-Survey/articleshow/12632772.cms

Professor8
Professor8

There was no "opportunity" or "up-side" mentioned in the article, though there were several assertions that we should all accept being abused. Yes, good jobs are being eliminated, and no better jobs are being created. You should be "flexible" and be happy to accept the abuse. Whipping and beatings will continue until morale improves... as the old tongue-in-cheek poster used to say.

Marc Jellinek
Marc Jellinek

“I think in future contracts will go down an outcome based approach where as long as the code is produced to the required spec, does it really matter what qualifications the developer has in the past? I use the Kwik Fit analogy - if I have my exhaust replaced I go to a specialist, they give me a price and a time. I don’t analyse the mechanic’s qualifications or a schedule of what they are doing - all I want them to do is deliver on time and on budget and that they phone me if there is a problem.” What is being recommended here is a return to Waterfall. If you are capable of defining your project (the diameter of the exhaust pipes, the acceptable db level of the muffler, the acceptable CO, CO2 and particulates in the exhaust), then this will work in IT. You'll quickly find that the specifications will take forever to write (if they are written at all). be out-of-date by the time the products are delivered and lead to cost overruns and frustrations by all.... very similar to the criticisms of Waterfall. When IT is standardized (ie: major paradigm shifts cease) and business processes are standardized across companies and industries, this will be a realistic approach. Until then, it's primariliy wishful thinking.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

but they just spouted some pro-offshoring cliches, and offered no real evidence? And, they off-handedly discard statements about the usefulness of local workforce compared to remote workforce, again, showing no evidence? That's what it sounds like. There's never going to be a real debate as long as the idiots in charge keep trying to fib their way through... and that means that the very needed development of new job roles here will keep being postponed. Stop spouting propaganda. The future will happen when you open your eyes.

lucsious
lucsious

Umm, I am disappointed in TechRepublic for trying to push an agenda here. This is the typical corporate line -- accept offshoring, learn to live with your lower-paid counterparts, and learn to accept your race to the bottom standard. If a foreigner wants to move to the US or UK or any western land where the cost of living dictates a higher wage -- I'M ALL FOR IT, let them compete on an even playing field. But, however, don't ask us higher wage earners to compete for what amounts to a loaf of bread for us in our own countries. I'm all for competition, but fair competition. So let's get real here. This article was written for and by the TechRepublic's corporate affiliations and Mr. Heath is just their lackey.

dave
dave

Look where we're at with all the manufacturing "off shore". Unprecedented fakes from plastic doohickeys all the way up to Cisco equipment. Unceasing products made with lead paint, melamine in milk and pet food and poisonous byproducts in drywall. The list goes on and on. Then there are the fake support people. Nortel used India for 2 years. Incidents like getting people over there who could speak english but could not talk technical were the nails in the coffin. Think of a pilot trying to describe a plane problem to a dentist support person. That's one flying beer can that I wouldn't board. Now when I call a support line, if something sounds off I will ask where they are located. If they refuse to answer or its not in the US or Canada I ask to be transferred to a supervisor and get that person to transfer me back to North America. We need to take care of our own first. Only by refusing to use off shored services (and products) will companies listen.

drkangld
drkangld

I think we need to have one of those "Undercover Boss" shows aired.

arioch13
arioch13

Having been involved in outsourcing decisions as both an internal executive sponsor and in support of clients for over 16 years, I can honestly say I have encountered very very few projects which have not had an extremely adverse effect on the companies concerned. Even those companies providing outsourcing solutions to clients with significant expertise often get it wrong when making decisions to fulfill elements of service based upon reducing cost via offshore resources. In recent years, several occasions have seen me finding myself being the sole person among board members pushing back on these decisions from the perspective of painful experience. It is a hard sell requiring re education and the illustration of precedent to make a point balanced against what looks like a strong financial imperative. The case is often made in so compelling a fashion proper due diligence may be less than it should be to enable a company to get to the cost savings as quickly as possible. Lets be honest with ourselves, many companies do not welcome push back when a silver bullet solution is presented which appears to have ticks all the right boxes. It is amazing to me that the sponsors of poor outsourcing decisions have all too often still been in post even after making highly flawed decisions which have ended in what should have been quite predictable consequences if one was taking the balanced long term view as the board are meant to do. If this proves one thing, it is that your board members are probably human too and in a moment of stress, might jump at the attractive option with less than total objectivity. Corporate governance requirements are too often bent to allow a questionable decision or decision which should have been questioned with far more rigor, Resistance to outsourcing from the public, poor process and cultural differences tend to be overlooked as does the massive cost of backtracking should things go wrong. In the short term poor outsourcing programs often means loosing some of the key assets (both hard and soft) which made a business function effectively forcing a dependance on a less the equal relationship. Very few companies admit they made the wrong decision even when glaringly often to employees, customers and clients alike. It has also meant increasing brain drain out of many western economies as well as limiting the opportunity for those who want to access the industry concerned in some cases as offshore outsourcing has become epidemic. In terms of the IT industry, some independent companies have estimated that 27% of jobs within the UK IT industry have been lost to Indian outsourcing companies alone over the last 3 years. More disappointingly the first jobs to be outsourced are often those which enable people to enter the industry and gain experience developing their skills with experience and training in a real world environment. I firmly believe that offshore outsourcing decisions have a much broader strategic importance for the UK skilled labor force than what seems on the surface to be an easy way to reduce cost. In the worst instances I have seen customer service decline, causing reduced revenue followed by another outsourcing decision to bridge the revenue gap starting an outsourcing cycle that becomes a company wide downward spiral as vital skills are lost. Even a limited decision to outsource can be followed by high staff turnover all across the business loosing even more expertise as people rush to abandon the sinking ship and try to find a more secure option and it becomes impossible to attract the best people. At a time where we need to be helping young people into our companies and developing skills, too often we have removed an entire tier of employment opportunity. This has been done at our peril in order to gain the attractive looking numbers advantage shown in outsourcing companies presentations. It is time for a reality check, particularly for public facing businesses. Some of the companies most highly rated for customer service in the UK are those actively capitalizing on decisions made by many others in the same industry to outsource offshore.

Chilidog67
Chilidog67

Everything is about the bottom line. What a lot of people don't even realise is that for a lot of companies offshoring isn't about making a profit, it's about increasing profit. Level of service and competency comes in second. The amount of wrangling over minutia in contract language is well below that. When companies make the decision to dump staff for a contractor (outsourced or local) they lose an employee who is invested in the business. Does a contractor care if your business succeeds? Probably not as much as he thinks about his next paycheck of vacation. Does an outsourced worker know anything about your business or what his role in it really is? Does a contract worker know anything about the history of the current systems? Do they understand your processes?

mikec540
mikec540

"We have to offshore because we can't find the skills locally...." is pure baloney and we're laying off large numbers of skilled workers chasing this figment. Unfortunately, if we continue to use this rationale for eliminating skilled jobs in the US, then it WILL become a self fulfilling prophecy. Who is going to go to college for 2-4 years to learn a skill (and rack up significant debt) where there will be no locally available jobs (at least at salaries that offer a living wage here in the US)? No one in his/her right mind, that's who. Ship enough middle class jobs offering good wages offshore and you end up with (surprise, surprise) 8% or 9% or 10% or ??% unemployment. Further, no jobs and lower salaries beget lower tax revenues, dramatically higher US social costs and balooning deficits. The only ones who make out on offshoring are the 1 percenters who run companies that pay them big bonuses to destroy local employment. Yet these geniuses won't acknowledge and don't even see the harm that they are causing in the long term. (As long as they are profitable for the next quarter, the heck with everything and everyone else.) Last time I checked the US had pretty much the largest/strongest economy in the world with more people having the desposable income to purchase the services and products offered by the very companies who have shipped their jobs off shore. Except because we're now shipping their jobs overseas these same US customers are not buying as much locally. So how do these offshoring companies maintain profits? Why by shipping even more jobs offshore! It's a vicious cycle and our burgeoning deficits clearly high light what the future holds for us if we continue on this path. Henry Ford understood that by offering his employees good, living wages they would have the disposable income to buy his cars. And they did, and for a long, long time Ford was a supremely profitable enterprise. The bozos running US corporations today don't understand this (and the vast majority of them are surely NOT Henry Ford). What we need to do to get this problem under control is to start boycotting companies that offshore jobs. They don't want to employ people locally, then we don't need what they are selling. I wonder how long we'd have to do that before we have smacked enough corporate executives across the forehead to get the message across that THEY are killing us here?

manuelramoscaro
manuelramoscaro

Offshoring can be the most destructive thing that we will ever face on IT. Why ? Because we must learn from others economics sectors that have been similar changes on all cases this changes have destroy all and on a progressive movement the industry have moving bussines from here to there on all levels. You must see chinese parasitary economic model that build, transport and sold... first they build, late when they know the market they sold and destroy all local industry...

russoisraeli
russoisraeli

This one goes right along side "Why the IT department needs more women". It is what you Brits call "rubbish". I really hope that this guy was never in charge in business making decisions in IT.

gevander
gevander

Offshoring will always be a threat to those workers who don't have the [b]opportunity[/b] for new positions that are created. If we move data processing jobs overseas and replace them with hardware support functions here - what good does that do me if I can do data processing but don't have the [i]training[/i] to do hardware support? Or if the hardware jobs are outside of an "easy" commute radius and [i]I can't get there[/i]. Something like this happened to me. I was working on an IBM helpdesk as a teleworker in Minnesota when that helpdesk was moved to India. I was told I could keep working for IBM on a different helpdesk... I just had to work in the office in Colorado with most of the rest of my coworkers. And there were no positions available within the company in my area. So tell me, Nick: Where is the opportunity there?

eryk81
eryk81

Outsourcing jobs from one location, community or country to a different one to lower cost is never good for anyone. It damages the local job market, the employers reputation on multiple levels and retards progress. The statement above, "750,000 jobs in finance, IT and other areas will be offshored by 2016, while a second predicts a total of 225,000 jobs will be created in cloud computing by 2015.", would be so much better if it read "750,000 jobs in finance, IT and other areas will NOT be offshored by 2016 and a total of 225,000 jobs will be created in cloud computing by 2015."

KelliJean
KelliJean

that is the most ridiculous thing I have read. Outsourcing our jobs is absolutely terrible. Many people stay in a job, very loyal working very hard, sacrifincing time with family, go through hard times with a company, wear many hats to help the company and what do we get in return. The company send all our jobs overseas to save on wages and taxes. Certainly anyone from any other country than the US is going to write such a stupid story.

Professor8
Professor8

Domestic (within polity) bodyshopping is bad in itself. Even if you out-source to a firm within the country, it still, in practice, involves cutting total compensation. In the past you would have invested in new-hire training, and regular retained-employee training. You would have mentored, nurtured and developed various kinds of expertise. When work-load lets up a bit, you'd pack nearly everyone into a training class to get them geared up for the next project, the new tools you're planning to deploy, etc. With bodyshopping you just dump the employees whenever there's a change (no more unemployment insurance obligations, no more pensions...). When you want a new project to start, you start the new contract term, and demand that everyone "hit the ground running". Meanwhile, the bodyshop managers would be striving to be the low-cost bidder; they'd be dangling very slightly above regular employee pro-rata hourly pay but hiding all that stuff about no pension, no pay for down-times, being dumped after x hours of down-time, possibly even hiding low prospects for a full year's full-time equivalent of work, etc. You'd cajole many of them to share an apartment. As with every software project, you'd use implicit cues to encourage them to work 50 or 60 or 80 hours per week while being paid the equivalent of 35 or 40 hours per week. Total costs per bodyshopped (including management burden, admin/secretarial support, benefits including stock and insurance and vacation and temporary accommodations and on-the-job transportation and pension...) might be 1.2 times their hourly pay rate, while costs per employee in ye olden days of real jobs were 2 times the annual salary. Cross-border bodyshopping is worse. As others have mentioned, differential costs of living are leveraged. A few bodyshoppers have been caught telling the government that the bodis being shopped would be working in very low cost-of-living/low pay locations, when in reality they've placed them in the highest cost-of-living/high pay locations. In addition, cross-border bodyshopping is used to facilitate off-shoring. The body shopped is used as an intellectual property conduit (one-way, out of the 1st world and into the 3rd; read Gurcharand Das and he will mention several of the many instances if you have your eyes open) and the body shopped is often a communications facilitator to try to bridge over the problems with language and colloquialisms and locally relevant analogies and metaphors. In some cases, the body shopped may even be involved in setting up the satellite links at each end or at least in testing them.

Mandolinface
Mandolinface

. I recently worked a two-month contract for a San Francisco-based clothing importer-retail chain. Though I'm U.S born and based, my contract was with a New Delhi-based temp agency who rented me out to a New Delhi-based IT consulting company, who rented me out to the U.S. end client. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the IT personnel were from India. (I'm not counting Americans of Indian origin, just visiting workers.) We were crammed together at long benches, little partitions separating the bench into a series of two-person 'micro-cubicles.' Between the influence of Indian wages and two entities raking off a cut of the pay before it got to me, I made the same rate as I did at the end of the last century. Industry shills like to say this is not a problem and, "We need to be looking at the jobs for tomorrow." We DO need to look at the jobs for tomorrow, but we won't. We didn't in the 1990s. We (here meaning the U.S.) didn't act on the obvious future need for technology workers and make college for certain majors free, or even paid. Other countries did this--and now Indians and other nationals dominate U.S. technology jobs while U.S. literature and theater arts graduates work in Starbucks to pay off their massive student loans. No doubt many more might-have-been home-grown technology workers couldn't afford college at all, and now work in jobs far below their potential. So whose fault is this state of affairs? It's not the Indians's; they're just reaping the rewards of the good planning that we like to talk about but don't act on. As Pogo said, "We have seen the enemy, and it is us." In a world where elected officials owed less to their campaign contributors, corporations would be allowed many fewer H1B1 visa workers, and would have incentives to train workers and provide college scholarships. It's bad enough that we're in this state of affairs, but it's salt in the wound when corporate PR hacks try to tell us that up is down, green is red, and exporting jobs is good for us.

HypnoToad72
HypnoToad72

in that workers need retraining, etc... But if the jobs aren't there and noting the skyrocketed cost OF education*, people taking the risk to improve themselves for themselves and their country are going to lose out, followed by "skill rot" because their skills are not capitalized on. "Supply and demand", "return on investment", "cost benefit analysis", and the rest apply to the demand side as well, and if people see no future in Field X, they will not sign up -- which led to astute politicians saying we need higher educated people. But there is a gap, which seems to be widening, and the students (and existing workers who have lost out) are paying the price of corporations offshoring, while corporations continue to get taxpayer-funded subsidies for offshoriing, and every bailout they demand because their size apparently makes it oh-so-catastrophic if they went under, noting the practices that made them big in the first place... * companies want people with degrees and these fields are established, meaning anybody with a drive and quick learning ability just doesn't have enough. Rock, meet hard place and at 70% off. Great way to live, huh?

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

[i]The practice of using overseas labour to fill certain tech roles doesnt necessarily mean a net loss of jobs, a recent debate at the BCS, the UK-based chartered institute for IT, heard.[/i] Of course not. But even a cursory analysis of the American experience with off-shoring would reveal a significant decrease in net pay for those jobs.. It would seem the analysts at the BCS are equal to the incompetence of the analysts at Gartner...

jgmsys@yahoo.com
jgmsys@yahoo.com

I don't see anyone rushing to offshore jobs to the US to make up for all the jobs that have been lost here. That's a nonsensical argument.

erh7771
erh7771

...otherwise it sounds insane for a country to cannibalize it's GDP for the sake of lower prices? NO...more social services? NO....more stable work force (somehow)? NO....for higher margins (of many types) that go in the hands of a relative few people who can't in ANY RATIONAL WAY make up the volume of spending in the general money supply that they're absorbing into savings or buying 10 yachts There's little shared sacrifice here and destabilizing a workforce by flooding it seems to by Pyrrhic at best.

valduboisvert
valduboisvert

offshoring is good. We won't be able to find IT jobs payed the same level anymore but the positive side is offshoring creates a lot more jobs in financing. Career change anyone?

Nick Heath
Nick Heath

To those addressing complaints to me personally, it's not a comment piece reflecting my view it's a report of what was said during a debate hosted by the BCS. We've posted plenty of blog posts focusing on other sides of this debate, on how offshoring has reduced entry-level roles in the UK driving down opportunities to enter IT and the difficulties finding graduates of sufficient quality in India to perform certain offshored jobs. This is simply a report of another point of view during a debate hosted by the BCS, a organisation for IT professionals with over 70,000 members worldwide.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

But that in itself is nothing new, they have been very advanced since the 1950's if not prior to that time. To be perfectly honest they are not even that cheap any more and have priced themselves out of the Budget category and with the companies of India attempts to produce higher trained workers they are now looking at the High End Market in all things not the lower levels of support. You need to remember that India has their own Atomic Energy and Weapons Programs and masses of qualified professionals to do every conceivable job possible. It makes no sense to train your population so highly and then have then not able to get gainful employment so it's the available work driving the Education System and that same Education System is constantly recommending students who have Overseas Qualifications so they are certainly not any cheaper as the majority of those High End Students are educated in places like the USA and Australia. As they have such a great education it really makes much more sense to Outsource the High End Management of Companies to places like India and keep the Low Level techs locally to deal with the problems that arise. So to push Outsourcing properly the various Company Boards should be Outsourcing themselves and Management Directly below them to places like India and running the Business from there. After all in a world of Globalization it makes no difference where you are to run a company when you are being paid by the minute and not worrying if the recipient is awake or asleep or even getting it off with the Company Supplied Secretary. Companies that Outsource should lead by example and start with Outsourcing the Boards and so on as anyone can run a business from anywhere in the world and set Policy but to get any work done to keep the customer satisfied you need local people to deal with them. The only time that a CEO is required is at the AGM to tell Shareholders how much their dividends will be and explain why their remuneration packages need to be accepted. Sorry but somehow I very much doubt that things like that are going to happen anytime soon. ;) Coll

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Domestic IT professionals? Wrong audience darling..

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

This was a report on a debate that was sponsored by the BCS, not an opinion piece.

rwilkin481
rwilkin481

I, too, ask them where they are located and request to be transferred to someone in the US.

valduboisvert
valduboisvert

I follow the same line of thinking like you. I try to buy american brands every time I can. As a simple example next time you go to let's say Sears, try to compare an american made screwdriver set with a chinese one. More expensive, yes, but a huge difference in quality. Now I ask you this question: who is the more skilled worker here, the one who builds quality products or the one who builds crap? Edit: And who in their right mind accepts to buy crap for the only reason cause is cheap ????

lcave
lcave

You hit it with your last line "THEY are killing us here" Even those with jobs, who have to depend on off shore support, are hurting!

valduboisvert
valduboisvert

Of course we all know there is absolutely no opportunity here except finance sector maybe. We also know this will be destructive for business in long term as well. But this article is counting on "Repetition" fallacy. Unfortunately for the poor twit who wrote it we are an educated and over the average IQ audience here. We do not buy this kind of nonsense.

HypnoToad72
HypnoToad72

workers. Still, a religious text once had it right: "Do unto others as you'd like to have done unto you." Those CEOs ignored that, combined with every ethics class being taught in schools as a result of the antics from the 80s and 90s... and assuming people adhere to ethics post-graduation.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Or, perhaps you can tell me why you think a report like that is newsworthy in and of itself? If you want to make news, you have to challenge your material, otherwise you're just a drain grate, letting all the BS pass through you. If you're merely reporting what was said, then make that clear... and ask yourself why you're bothering regurgitating unchewed and undigested what is probably available on the net somewhere anyway. If what you're doing is superfluous, why do it?

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

backed up not by facts but by a puerile argument to authority. Obviously such low quality is acceptable to you, not to us though. Where's the reports of the points of view that this one is other to?

rwilkin481
rwilkin481

According to BCS, really, did they win the 'debate'?

Professor8
Professor8

It reflects your view to the extent that you (presumably with editor over-sight) chose the terminology, chose what questions to ask, what facts to check, what mood to use, etc. As a report on a debate it should clearly report the hypotheses being debated and key points made by both sides. Both sides should be reported on in an even-handed manner. Readers should know the bona fides of the representatives of each side in the debate. (Et c. See the other post.) "debate hosted by the BCS, a organisation for IT professionals with over 70,000 members worldwide" Yes, but who are they? What motivates the advocates for each side in the "debate"? How do they benefit or lose? What parts of "IT" do they represent? Is the membership heavily weighted with academics? Executives in academia? Managers? Business executives? Government administrators? Newbies? Old pros? What proportion are in England? The UK? The commonwealth outside England? What kinds of questions did you ask them (since you don't seem to have asked the questions several posters would have asked or wanted answers for)? What fact-checking did you and/or your colleagues do? Or, is this just a press release you've dressed up, edited down, and passed on to what you expected to be a naive and uncritical public? Even such propaganda might be minimally acceptable if prominently labeled as such. (But, even then, all assertions -- explicit and implied -- really should be checked.)

rwilkin481
rwilkin481

What kind of debate, policy, public forum, Lincoln-Douglas? All debate forms have pros and cons. Why not analyze both the pros and cons and present them and let the reader decide, instead of drawing your own conclusion.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

What would Santeewelding say? I've never seen journalism that was not an opinion piece, ever. A lie once repeated is two times the lie.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Unless the BCS gagged the other side of the debate as well... The fact that only one side was reported and that leaves the auidience only one set of "facts" to draw from leading to only one conclusion, that just happens to be the one TR's corporate sponsors would like us to draw is presumably a happy coincidence? Come on, I know you can do better than that.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

[i]And who in their right mind accepts to buy crap for the only reason cause is cheap ???? [/i] Tens of millions of Walmart shoppers, the vast majority of whom understand that you get what you pay for, but can't afford to pay for it..

rwilkin481
rwilkin481

If someone can just tell me what to do about the student loans and health care, I'm good. By the time they resolve this I'll be close to retirement age.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

And where is the interview of the spouter of this effluvia, grilling him on his hints and assumptions? Now that'd be worth reading. Probably worth a laff or two, too.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Everybody is just quoting the last one, each washing their hands of the BS, all the while lending it their authority by repetition. Why do that, if not attempting to achieve what the BS was attempting to achieve? Why take part in a tendentious circus?

Professor8
Professor8

That's exactly my impression. With the loss of 1st world employment and compensation, people buy rubbish that will last a fraction of the old inexpensive items, and hope that everything will turn around before it goes bad/wears out/becomes useless and they have to buy replacements. But the rubbish goes so quickly that they never have a chance. ""We have to offshore because we can't find the skills locally...." is pure baloney" Right. "Because we can't find one person with this excessive pie-in-the-sky wish-list within 3 blocks of the office, we have to ignore the whole rest of the country and go straight to the 3rd world for several units of cheap young pliant labor with flexible ethics, instead." There's "local" and then there's "local" and they're hoping we don't know the difference. There are actual skills, actual knowledge and capabilities, and then there are "key-words"; totally different, but the terminology allows the malefactors to conflate them. Love those ads that say "must have 3-7 years of experience"; so, if you've got 30 years of experience you're not "qualified"?! And "guest-workers wanted" means "citizens need not apply", because we will find a pretext to declare that you are "unqualified" even if we have to have 4 law firms on retainer to help do it.

rwilkin481
rwilkin481

Hence the rise of the dollar stores, these stocks are on a tear the last couple years. Why? Because the unemployed and underemployed workers can no longer afford to shop anywhere else.

Editor's Picks