[ReluctantRebel]

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

The input quality and the 'right queries' are what give one the desired quality of output.
Too often I find that like you say, the bloke writing the query is clueless on what he is writing it for, having near zero business understanding.
It is time to cross-skill and give hard core tech blokes an opportunity to learn business because in my considered opinion, Techno-Business is the path to the future.

Exactly, unless one understands the business, one cannot understand the reason for writing a piece of code. Knowledge of business helps in understanding the end users, who actually matter for the companies.

[prasadee]

Originally Posted by sunishsamuel

The link also says "job cuts will not take place in major cities like Mumbai or Bengaluru, but cities like Coimbatore or a few remote places " i dont think so many engineers are employed in those cities. Or referring to the BPO industries in those cites ?

"Job cuts will not take place in Bangalore, Mumbai", or "2 Lakh job cuts" is such a broad senseless/click-bait journalism. People are forgetting what a real news article should be like.
<Tangent> The real shortage in the country is the lack of true journalists. Those who go the distance in doing solid first hand investigation, collect first hand data to back up their claim and pen an article in the traditional sense. One that has a relevant headline, a story and a summary. Also credits the data source, and stands by that data. Who is studying journalism with a focus on macro economics and labor market anyways? In my observation, the smart ones are not. Because, nobody cares to demand such quality in reporting.
<\Tangent>

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Also, I have been expecting this for few years now because it was inevitable. I am surprised it took so long. The H1B restriction was the final straw that broke the camel's back. The large IT companies finally got the pretext they were waiting for. Now they can start large scale firings while squarely blaming it on Trump. Trump is not really the cause for this, but he makes a perfect scapegoat.

Right.
Also, as an IT industry insider, I know that there are loads of people in the industry, at all levels, in each company (bigger the company, more such people), who can best be termed as burdens. We have a sample or two in each account. Shaking the tree shall weed these people out. Sadly, it is taking out a few good people too.
Companies went on a hiring spree in the last few years. Now when the pipeline does not match the forecasts, cutting down on workforce is happening.
Trump and US Visa problem can be tackled by increased offshoring and near-shoring. Companies are just using this pretext for firing/freezing.

Using the automation/robotics part for downsizing is another lie - most of the folks I know are eager to learn automation (some have even learnt it on their own), but companies cannot give them enough opportunities. Now if someone learns a skillset, and you cannot give them task items for that skillset which you have mentioned is the next paradigm - who is to blame?

[sgiitk]

@blackasta; Obviously. The jobs moving to the US are entry level while most of the redundancies in India are at the mid-upper echelons, and that too managers. One does no need to be a pundit to figure this out.

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

@blackasta; Obviously. The jobs moving to the US are entry level while most of the redundancies in India are at the mid-upper echelons, and that too managers. One does no need to be a pundit to figure this out.

I have got a query with this entire thing.

Say company A uses an IT outsourcer B to get work done.
The work volume is 3 person years.

outsourcer B charges $20/hr rate and gets a team of 3 people to get the work done from offshore. One can be reasonably sure that one of these 3 guys is a person who is atleast 2-3 years experienced. If the work is niche the average team experience will go up.

Total cost for a year for company A = $20 x 160 hrs (avg work hrs in a month) x 12 x 3= 115200

Now company A decides to hire US citizens to do the same work.

Would they be able to hire 3 US citizens for the same cost? plus benefits?
If not, who would take the hit - company A shall settle for a reduced profit margin, or company A shall pass on the cost to it's customers - the average US citizen?

Are normal US citizens ready to pay that additional dollar?

[Samurai]

Your example is bit too hypothetical for now. Outsourcing has not been banned. And jobs are not going back to USA, at least not to be done by people.

Let's say offshore outsourcing is banned, company A wouldn't automatically consider hiring direct. There are reasons other than just cost, like logistics of HRM. Even when offshore outsourcing was not popular (late 80s, early 90s), US corporations (and government) relied heavily on contract employees. When I was in Bell Labs (NJ), all the work was being done within the company. More than half the staff were not employees, but very few were non-citizens. In fact, most contract staff were former employees who re-joined as contractors while making more money. The company didn't mind paying more to former employees who were doing the same work on contract basis. But when the project got cancelled, contract staff vanished right away and employees hung around doing nothing.

However, they didn't let go contract staff from TCS (like me) because we were too cheap to let go. Ultimate VFM we were... So I got to laze around for 2-3 months until the next project started.

[volkman10]

Recession in manufacturing sectors too, targets executives, blue collared workforce are exempted.

Ford plans to cut global workforce by 10% of its salaried workforce in North America and Asia.

Ford will offer generous early retirement incentives to reduce its salaried ranks by Oct. 1, but the company does not plan cuts to its hourly workforce or production levels

Reducing costs and becoming as lean and efficient as possible also remain part of that work. We have not announced any new people efficiency actions, nor do we comment on speculation

Link

[centaur]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Skills and training requirements need to be compartmentalized into two sections: immediate & long-term.

Immediate covers what you need to perform your current role, and long-term is obviously what you need to get where you want to go. Depending on what you're doing, both sets may or may not have stuff in common. Goes without saying an organisation won't necessarily offer to support your long-term goals unless they gain something out of it. That's where Samurai's advice of 'owning your long-term education needs' is relevant.

Immediate is usually easy to nail down and quantify, but long-term needs meticulous planning and awareness of where your intended line of work/industry is going as a whole.

Unfortunately, barring a few firms, most others don't help with short term as well. Once you get into a people management/project management role, there are few firms which actually help you train even for immediate goals. Also like mentioned earlier, when you learn a new skillset, irrespective of your past experience, you are considered kind of a fresher in that skill which again doesn't go well with most.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Readily available skill is always desired over training an existing employee, especially if the skill is a tough one to acquire.

Am not talking about acquiring a new one. I am talking of an existing skillset, say Java. A lateral with similar experience and same skill sets gets hired at a higher package than what an existing employee gets. The hard to get/niche skills being paid more is understandable.

Few questions to both of you just to help me understand the situation better-

1. We say that companies would provide training only for immediate goals/requirements but not future ones. If you consider the trainings provided to freshers, it still doesn't have any of the new technologies coming up. It is still the rudimentary Java, .Net etc. Why is that? These freshers are put in projects which are just support projects and then laid off saying they have no skills. I personally know people who took course to stay relevant but got laid of saying they do not have a project experience even though they have the skillset

2. If the question for a person is to have technological relevance then why are the job losses only in India and not abroad at least in terms of scale (even if we consider relative to the % of workforce in the 2 regions). Many here, if not all, are to some extent way more technologically relevant than those there still the number of layoffs here is way more than there.

3. What about the structure of a person having to moving into a people/project management role after a particular experience level? (please leave out exceptions but if you ask around you will see majority have had to move away from coding for reasons explained in my earlier posts)

4. If we say its about money, then why does a manager get paid more than a techie counterpart. Atleast thats how it works in most companies for now. When a techie does not see an incentive in being into coding, there is not much to hold him because at the end of the day all of us work for Vitamin M

Originally Posted by blackasta

Using the automation/robotics part for downsizing is another lie - most of the folks I know are eager to learn automation (some have even learnt it on their own), but companies cannot give them enough opportunities. Now if someone learns a skillset, and you cannot give them task items for that skillset which you have mentioned is the next paradigm - who is to blame?

Spot on!

Originally Posted by Samurai

And jobs are not going back to USA, at least not to be done by people.

Sorry sir but it has already happened. Some firms I know of, have laid of people in India for US specific hiring. Some of them came in the news but some did not but it is actually happening.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by centaur

Sorry sir but it has already happened. Some firms I know of, have laid of people in India for US specific hiring. Some of them came in the news but some did not but it is actually happening.

How would these companies break even ? For the price of 1 in US, they could hire 2 in say Romania and 5 in India.
If they need people to be on work, this strategy of firing in India and hiring in US wont work for long term; they would bleed financially.
Of course, as part of news, some of the Tech giants are quoting numbers of hiring in US, but that must be perceived as a way to keep investors and governments happy.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by centaur

Am not talking about acquiring a new one. I am talking of an existing skillset, say Java. A lateral with similar experience and same skill sets gets hired at a higher package than what an existing employee gets.

It is hard to comment without hearing the explanation from the HR who practice this. This is at best described under frictional unemployment, caused by dysfunctional HR practice within the firm.

The current recession is caused by structural unemployment.

Originally Posted by centaur

If you consider the trainings provided to freshers, it still doesn't have any of the new technologies coming up. It is still the rudimentary Java, .Net etc. Why is that? These freshers are put in projects which are just support projects and then laid off saying they have no skills.

What skills do those support projects require?

Originally Posted by centaur

2. If the question for a person is to have technological relevance then why are the job losses only in India and not abroad at least in terms of scale (even if we consider relative to the % of workforce in the 2 regions).

You'll have to be specific. What other region, and are they providing cheap low skill IT labour like India.

Originally Posted by centaur

3. What about the structure of a person having to moving into a people/project management role after a particular experience level?

Not sure what is the question here.

Originally Posted by centaur

4. If we say its about money, then why does a manager get paid more than a techie counterpart. Atleast thats how it works in most companies for now. When a techie does not see an incentive in being into coding, there is not much to hold him because at the end of the day all of us work for Vitamin M

This is a cultural problem in India. Manager is considered the boss and given more salary than the techie, despite having less skills. I am very against this concept. In my company all managers are hardcore techies, and generally more capable than their team members.

Originally Posted by centaur

Sorry sir but it has already happened. Some firms I know of, have laid of people in India for US specific hiring. Some of them came in the news but some did not but it is actually happening.

These can only be exceptions. In general, this is not economically viable. Unless offshoring is banned, I don't see it happening.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by blackasta

.....
Companies went on a hiring spree in the last few years. Now when the pipeline does not match the forecasts, cutting down on workforce is happening.

Most people in charge of 'capacity planning/forecasting' probably don't have a handle on what it really means. Most just equate it to a recruitment/headcount mgmt. exercise. It isn't.

....most of the folks I know are eager to learn automation (some have even learnt it on their own), but companies cannot give them enough opportunities.....

Automation by itself is not a skill-set, cut and dried. If someone told me they knew a specific programming language to a certain level of expertise (say intermediate-level Java), I'd have a fair idea what he/she meant. If someone told me they knew automation, I'd be inclined to ask them to be more specific. Automation means nothing as a standalone skill-set, context is critical.

Now if someone learns a skillset, and you cannot give them task items for that skillset which you have mentioned is the next paradigm - who is to blame?

Back to the premise of doing business. a company's objective is to train people to match task requirements, not find jobs to meet available skill-sets.

Automation reduces manpower needs by definition. An automated process means less manual intervention, ergo less headcount required to provide that intervention. 'X' highly-skilled resources are no use to a company if they only need 'X/2' to keep their business running smoothly.

Nothing to do with skills, it's a capacity-based decision.

Originally Posted by blackasta

....Would they be able to hire 3 US citizens for the same cost? plus benefits?....

Contract labor is your answer. While still frowned upon in India, it's widely used worldwide from much before offshoring became the buzzword.

Contractors may cost more than a full-time employees (FTE) upfront, but contractors are usually not paid equivalent benefits (which can be significant amounts in the West compared to India), and can both be hired and let go based on variable requirements far quicker than an FTE.

Indian IT has lost its primary advantage, cost effectiveness, and doesn't have a significant alternative to offer. We had a huge head-start and the know-how to build a value-driven ecosystem, but everyone took the easy way out to make the quick buck.

China is ramping up quickly and the next arm of Indian IT under threat is going to be BPO services, and there are several others competing for the same pieces of pie. The carnage is just beginning.

Originally Posted by centaur

Unfortunately, barring a few firms, most others don't help with short term as well. Once you get into a people management/project management role, there are few firms which actually help you train even for immediate goals.

Honestly, if an organisation is unwilling to equip an employee for the job they're expected to deliver, it isn't the kind of place to build a career, whether immediate or long-term.

A lateral with similar experience and same skill sets gets hired at a higher package than what an existing employee gets.

This does happen, but compensation packages vary for a variety of reasons. Forget a lateral hire, two existing employees of similar skill-sets and equal on every measurable parameter may end up with different compensation reviews, IF one of them is considered a higher flight risk than the other.

That's just one factor, there are plenty others.

1. We say that companies would provide training only for immediate goals/requirements but not future ones. If you consider the trainings provided to freshers, it still doesn't have any of the new technologies coming up. It is still the rudimentary Java, .Net etc. Why is that? These freshers are put in projects which are just support projects and then laid off saying they have no skills. I personally know people who took course to stay relevant but got laid of saying they do not have a project experience even though they have the skillset....

Indian graduates are predominantly considered undeployable out of college. Most don't know even the bare basics of programming/coding. I've met candidates who couldn't even write a simple algorithm in basic English, forget write an actual piece-of-code. Syntax can be taught, logical reasoning is not entirely a trainable skill.

Companies have no choice but teach such candidates basics before any task-oriented training can be provided. New technologies don't even get into the picture, because companies working on cutting-edge tech won't even be looking at such candidates in the first place.

While the 'how will I get experience if I never get to work' is a perennial catch-22, most companies either don't have the time or inclination to build resources ground-up. They'd rather just hire a readily available resource. This kind of short-sighted vision is exactly what's gotten them into the mess they're in today.

Employers like Samurai do focus on holistic training, but they're unable to compete financially. Given the choice between a better salary today or better training for the future, no prizes for guessing what most in the IT workforce will choose. Why blame employers alone, when both sides are choosing short-term benefits over long-term development?

2. If the question for a person is to have technological relevance then why are the job losses only in India and not abroad.....

Short answer, we're grossly over-staffed and under-skilled. Most of our IT workforce is trained to excel in task-focused environments, but fail miserably when building something from scratch. There's a reason our IT Services industry is predominantly still a body-shopping exercise after nearly FOUR decades of existence.

3. What about the structure of a person having to moving into a people/project management role after a particular experience level?

I've answered that before. While there's undeniably a mindset problem, it's not restricted to organisations alone. Doing what one wants sometimes involves difficult choices, and most people take the easy way out for a variety of reasons. If someone wants to remain an individual contributor but is forced to take a lead/supervisor/manager position, it's in one's best interest to walk out.

4. When a techie does not see an incentive in being into coding, there is not much to hold him because at the end of the day all of us work for Vitamin M

'What'll get me ahead quickest' mindset at play again, and that's primarily because there's no real passion for a technical job in the first place. "Manager tag means more money? Sure, let me switch". Most people aren't willing to sacrifice some money/benefits/comfort to do what they really love, but good luck getting anyone to admit that.

Everyone needs money, but not everyone works for it. In my mentor's words: "Life's like a laboratory experiment. Some people put money in the 'objective' column, others in 'apparatus required'. You choose which group you want to join".

You're way off the mark assuming everyone is solely motivated by Vit. M.

Sorry sir but it has already happened. Some firms I know of, have laid of people in India for US specific hiring. Some of them came in the news but some did not but it is actually happening.

Some jobs will move onshore, some should have been there to begin with and only moved offshore for 'cheaper labor' but companies now realize the cost-benefit analysis doesn't work out. IT companies may want everyone to believe the current situation is because of recent global events and protectionist policy-making, but Indian IT Services was on shaky ground for a long while and this would've happened regardless of any factors being blamed now.

[TorqueyTechie]

The prime factors (well atleast from my perspective) which I believe that is causing this are :

1. All major companies have set up(or on the verge of setting up) their own tech COE's. Majority of the work is now being done in house. They are becoming self sufficient more and more.
2. Offshoring work is more towards having a cheap workforce only. The managing part is being done by the client themselves. So there goes the roles of PM's, PL's , TL's.
3. Projects being implemented in Lean/Agile way. So the expectation of the clients are simple. Entire team should be cross skilled. No dependency on any one individual and no SME's in the team. Earlier teams would have an analysts team, testing team and dev team. Now its all called dev team. No or very few analysts (requirements come directly from business) and others would work on developing/testing the application/product.

I still remember what many of my seniors from the industry had told me when I was a newbie," IT is no different than a govt job. You need to be in the good books of your manager's to get good hike, work or onsite.". I used to always contest this and say that as long as one is talented and hard working no need to do any of this. Work speaks for itself. I guess the people who were like that earlier are the ones to be afraid now.

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Automation by itself is not a skill-set, cut and dried. If someone told me they knew a specific programming language to a certain level of expertise (say intermediate-level Java), I'd have a fair idea what he/she meant. If someone told me they knew automation, I'd be inclined to ask them to be more specific. Automation means nothing as a standalone skill-set, context is critical.

Back to the premise of doing business. a company's objective is to train people to match task requirements, not find jobs to meet available skill-sets.

Contract labor is your answer. While still frowned upon in India, it's widely used worldwide from much before offshoring became the buzzword.

Contractors may cost more than a full-time employees (FTE) upfront, but contractors are usually not paid equivalent benefits (which can be significant amounts in the West compared to India), and can both be hired and let go based on variable requirements far quicker than an FTE.

Regarding Automation - ones who have learnt it correctly (not merely record and playback) shall be intermediate level skilled in either VBscript (UFT) or Java/Perl etc (Selenium) or something else. Though scriptless automation tools are coming up fast.

Regarding a company's objective being to train people to match task requirements - the companies have been stating that the next big thing is automation. So people learnt/were made to learn the same. Now the companies cannot provide promised work those very people, whose expectation has been set higher after learning something new.

Regarding contract labor - all offshore/onshore outsourcing is contractual. So there is absolutely no cost advantage by firing 3 contractors in India and hiring 3 contractors to do the same task in USA.

[centaur]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

How would these companies break even ?

The companies obviously charge this back to the clients/customers. So basically now services get more expensive for them.

Originally Posted by Samurai

It is hard to comment without hearing the explanation from the HR who practice this. This is at best described under frictional unemployment, caused by dysfunctional HR practice within the firm.

The current recession is caused by structural unemployment.

If you ask an explanation the first thing you will be told is "remuneration is extremely confidential and we do not discuss it". If you have a friendly HR the only answer you get is " well, he/she is a lateral hire" and mind you, this is a very rampant practice across most companies if not all. Some do have a structure in place where based on a particular experience level, they are put in a pay range and not above or below.

Originally Posted by Samurai

What skills do those support projects require?

Why should a fresher be put only in a support project? Why not use them for projects say in big data or data analytics?

Originally Posted by Samurai

You'll have to be specific. What other region, and are they providing cheap low skill IT labour like India.

Consider US or Europe. It doesnt really matter. Also if you speak of cheap labour then most lay offs should be in the US for the Indian IT firms isnt it? Point here is are we saying that the Indian staff in US is more skilled than those in India that the layoffs are happening only here based on the % of workforce in either of the places

Originally Posted by Samurai

Not sure what is the question here.

The question was where in a techie in most cases, basis his experience is slowly and gradually moved into a project management/people management role. In most companies, people dont get an option to not have reportees or stay pure technical. Have quoted examples earlier of people who tried to do that failed at it

Originally Posted by Samurai

This is a cultural problem in India. Manager is considered the boss and given more salary than the techie, despite having less skills. I am very against this concept. In my company all managers are hardcore techies, and generally more capable than their team members.

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make since long. I would say your company is an exception to this case if its an IT services company

Originally Posted by Samurai

These can only be exceptions. In general, this is not economically viable. Unless offshoring is banned, I don't see it happening.

They aren't. This is happening, and it is happening big time and the funny part is that majorly people in India are being laid off to recruit people in US, a logic which I could not make sense of

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Honestly, if an organisation is unwilling to equip an employee for the job they're expected to deliver, it isn't the kind of place to build a career, whether immediate or long-term.

Now we are getting somewhere but unfortunately, such firms who actually equip employees are very less.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

This does happen, but compensation packages vary for a variety of reasons. Forget a lateral hire, two existing employees of similar skill-sets and equal on every measurable parameter may end up with different compensation reviews, IF one of them is considered a higher flight risk than the other.

That's just one factor, there are plenty others.

Agreed but within the same firm its ('ideally'?) based on your performance (in reality it isnt and that is why many of them have done away with the bell curve) and that is agreeable but here is the question is of laterals.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Indian graduates are predominantly considered undeployable out of college. Most don't know even the bare basics of programming/coding. I've met candidates who couldn't even write a simple algorithm in basic English, forget write an actual piece-of-code. Syntax can be taught, logical reasoning is not entirely a trainable skill.

Agree to a certain extent but then most likely those people are filtered out in the prescreening process itself. They don't even make it to the next rounds and even if they do, they don't land a job.

Also you would have noticed that IT services companies have been taking in freshers from any engineering stream, specialization notwithstanding. How do they expect a chemical/mechanical engineering student to write a code when they have never been taught about it? This is why they have a basic training, which is again is a rushed through program in most organizations that too on the mainstream technologies .

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Companies have no choice but teach such candidates basics before any task-oriented training can be provided. New technologies don't even get into the picture, because companies working on cutting-edge tech won't even be looking at such candidates in the first place.

Not true. There are people who definitely make it to such firms even if they do have the basics and at the same time candidates who can code even in their sleep get left out and you are stunned to the core when these two happen, and no it isn't a one off case. Eventually the latter to makes way into some or the other firm and grows but in the first shot, he gets filtered.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

While the 'how will I get experience if I never get to work' is a perennial catch-22, most companies either don't have the time or inclination to build resources ground-up. They'd rather just hire a readily available resource. This kind of short-sighted vision is exactly what's gotten them into the mess they're in today.

Bang on! Precisely what I have been wanting to say

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Why blame employers alone, when both sides are choosing short-term benefits over long-term development?

Have already mentioned why the blame (if not completely, majorly) is on the employers

1. No new technology trainings to new workforce being inducted and then cry about not having a trained workforce on newer technologies

2. Not able to give work to people who have the skillsets because of which they lose the motivation. So how do you blame the employee in that case?

3. Same rant of moving people away from technical skills to management and that is how the industry is structure. Most firms dont give an option to stay technical.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Short answer, we're grossly over-staffed and under-skilled. Most of our IT workforce is trained to excel in task-focused environments, but fail miserably when building something from scratch. There's a reason our IT Services industry is predominantly still a body-shopping exercise after nearly FOUR decades of existence.

Agree to a certain extent but have these IT companies been able to build anything anywhere? Let me agree that our staff is underskilled and undertrained but what about elsewhere?US? Europe? Canada? If they had the foresight to build something like you say, they would have found the resources required. Saying the workforce is not trainable is just an excuse at this point in time.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

I've answered that before. While there's undeniably a mindset problem, it's not restricted to organisations alone. Doing what one wants sometimes involves difficult choices, and most people take the easy way out for a variety of reasons. If someone wants to remain an individual contributor but is forced to take a lead/supervisor/manager position, it's in one's best interest to walk out.

Even if you do walk out, most likely you will end up in a similar soup in your next organization. You would be really lucky to find an Org which would appreciate you being technical role wise

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

'What'll get me ahead quickest' mindset at play again, and that's primarily because there's no real passion for a technical job in the first place. "Manager tag means more money? Sure, let me switch". Most people aren't willing to sacrifice some money/benefits/comfort to do what they really love, but good luck getting anyone to admit that.

I dont think the mindset you mention here is a reason for not being passionate about a tech job and anyway looking at progress isnt wrong.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Everyone needs money, but not everyone works for it. In my mentor's words: "Life's like a laboratory experiment. Some people put money in the 'objective' column, others in 'apparatus required'. You choose which group you want to join".

You're way off the mark assuming everyone is solely motivated by Vit. M.

I stand corrected. I missed adding "most of us" in the Vit. M. statement.

[m8002?]

Originally Posted by blackasta

Regarding Automation - ones who have learnt it correctly (not merely record and playback) shall be intermediate level skilled in either VBscript (UFT) or Java/Perl etc (Selenium) or something else. Though scriptless automation tools are coming up fast.

Regarding a company's objective being to train people to match task requirements - the companies have been stating that the next big thing is automation. So people learnt/were made to learn the same. Now the companies cannot provide promised work those very people, whose expectation has been set higher after learning something new.

You are missing the main point of automation. Automation is to reduce the manual efforts. As an example, with automation, I need only 50% workforce. Even if everyone in the team learns "automation" as you put it, the company cannot provide opportunities for all the existing 100% just because they know automation as the manual effort is now reduced. So 50% will have to moved.