[ampere]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

I was about to opine on the other side of this same coin. Lots of companies used to have data jockeys under the guise of Analytics groups/departments, where the majority of them were doing nothing but manual data collection/collation/presentation for lack of a centralized solution.

The reason being: At one end we have engineers who are only good at coding at executing software. These are the folks who have no clue about maths in spite of more than 5 semesters studying maths in engineering. At the other end of the spectrum are the pure science guys (BSc/Msc Maths) who know maths with some detail, but have clue on how to apply it, because of lack of analytical skills. Complete lack of knowledge of coding/automation, makes their knowledge to no use.

What is needed is a good mix of the two, with further knowledge as a build-up to insightful visualisation of the processed data.

[ashokrajagopal]

When you say we have engineers good at coding, it sounds very unrealistic.

We have engineers who can be PROGRAMMERS. We do not have many engineers who can be DEVELOPERS. I cant think of any other way to articulate this out.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

When you say we have engineers good at coding, it sounds very unrealistic.

Agreed. I should have been more clearer with respect to coding vs programming. My point was not towards development. But to articulate the fact that engineers have more affinity to tools for compute, but still cant make use of them simply because of lack of content on basics of maths. My points were toward the debate on analytics.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

We have engineers who can be PROGRAMMERS. We do not have many engineers who can be DEVELOPERS. I cant think of any other way to articulate this out.

I think we are getting into semantics, how do you differentiate between them?

Like this? http://www.skorks.com/2010/03/the-di...ter-scientist/

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Why do you assume that?

While I was busy, many have answered this question. Looks like you have not seen how many jobs have been killed by cloud and SaaS. I also provide SaaS over the cloud, so I am acutely aware of what is happening.

==========
There is also this mass delusion that is the result of this low skill IT revolution that lasted 20+ years. People expect pay according to their years of experience, rather than the value they bring to the organization. I don't even understand where this is coming from. I often get emails from experienced IT folks saying "I make so much now, expect 20% hike if you hire me". Meanwhile I don't see much in their resume even to offer half that amount. It prompted me to write this article last year.

My friend, I can sense your pain since you seem to find it tough to recruit "appropriately skilled" talent at a reasonable price point.

I also take your point that cloud services and automation have taken out a bunch of jobs, but the point is that earlier in the days of on premise data centers, there was a need for system administrators, network engineers etc... Now even if they were good at their jobs, a lot of them were impacted/will be impacted by the move to the cloud. However, they adapted/will adapt to the changing situation. That's evolution.

You have pointed out opportunities in Data Analytics. Maybe that's the next big thing, maybe not, but if it takes off and if a company requires folks with those skillsets, then the market will adapt and evolve and provide people with those skills.

In addition, these middle aged professionals are the relics of the IT revolution that didn't need any hard skill. So they barely learned anything that could be useful in the future.

This is generalization and is your perception speaking. I don't think its fair to state that a whole bunch of middle aged IT professionals learnt barely anything that could be useful in the future. Companies needed them for a particular role requiring specific skills and they performed that role for years. Perhaps those skills are obsolete now, but people management skills are required not just in the IT industry. People with a knack of managing people and inspiring them to perform are always at a premium.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

My friend, I can sense your pain since you seem to find it tough to recruit "appropriately skilled" talent at a reasonable price point.

Frankly, I don't bother. I only hire freshers who have no skill and then train them in a way colleges should have. I teach them how to think and adapt to any new situation. Not everybody manages to learn this, even the 1/3 that do, go on to be highly productive and creative. This has really worked out me.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

However, they adapted/will adapt to the changing situation. That's evolution.

Not everybody can adapt, that too is part of evolution, survival of the fittest. People who went through many hardships are generally more capable of adapting. But people who were recruited from campus, enjoyed big salaries from day one, and for the next decade or two are rarely capable of adapting. They simply don't have the practice. I know ample examples of both cases.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

You have pointed out opportunities in Data Analytics. Maybe that's the next big thing, maybe not, but if it takes off and if a company requires folks with those skillsets, then the market will adapt and evolve and provide people with those skills.

Data analytics could have been huge a decade ago. Except, IT was providing high salaries and had very low entry barrier. Analytics has high entry barrier of actually knowing stuff, so very few people even make an attempt.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

This is generalization and is your perception speaking. I don't think its fair to state that a whole bunch of middle aged IT professionals learnt barely anything that could be useful in the future.

Why do you keep thinking it is merely my perception? I am at the age where all my peers, friends, lots of juniors I mentored over decades are middle aged IT professionals. It is my observation, not perception.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Companies needed them for a particular role requiring specific skills and they performed that role for years.

True, and many of them grew old in those comfort zones thinking that the situation will continue until they retire. They didn't constantly challenge themselves.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

People with a knack of managing people and inspiring them to perform are always at a premium.

But there will be fewer people to manage. Such people management jobs too are endangered. Where you needed 10 managers to handle 100 people, will require 1 manager to manage 10 people.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I think we are getting into semantics, how do you differentiate between them?

Like this? http://www.skorks.com/2010/03/the-di...ter-scientist/

Not exactly like that article says, may be my semantics is wrong.
At least in some institutions we have s/w engineers coming out who can write programs given a question. With the right guidance and environment, these people can always stick to the basics and evolve out as good "coders", shall we call it that ?
A developer on the other hand( just how I thought about it, not about the article) can move over technologies quickly and always has a grip on the bigger picture. These are people who can grasp technology changes fast and often "develop" new stuff. When "developers" show the way, "programmers" can write the code.

Its the design of the systems that separates developers from programmers.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

This is generalization and is your perception speaking. I don't think its fair to state that a whole bunch of middle aged IT professionals learnt barely anything that could be useful in the future. Companies needed them for a particular role requiring specific skills and they performed that role for years. Perhaps those skills are obsolete now, but people management skills are required not just in the IT industry. People with a knack of managing people and inspiring them to perform are always at a premium.

What is the big deal about people management in IT ? People management is required only where people are required in large numbers. There are a whole lot of people in IT industry with decades of experience who do not add any value to the ecosystem. They have not updated themselves with evolving technologies and because they have never been trained on the basics of engineering ( not in college where education is bad, not in their jobs where they just managed people) or the basics of sales, they wont have any role to play in future. This is the case with the majority. There are exceptionally capable people in small numbers in any category though.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Frankly, I don't bother. I only hire freshers who have no skill and then train them in a way colleges should have. I teach them how to think and adapt to any new situation. Not everybody manages to learn this, even the 1/3 that do, go on to be highly productive and creative. This has really worked out me.

Maybe you should tie up with the colleges in your city and offer internships /after college courses so that the students learn those skills while still in college and don't waste more time after 4 years of useless education which teaches them no skills.

Not everybody can adapt, that too is part of evolution, survival of the fittest. People who went through many hardships are generally more capable of adapting. But people who were recruited from campus, enjoyed big salaries from day one, and for the next decade or two are rarely capable of adapting. They simply don't have the practice. I know ample examples of both cases.

Well, if people do not /cannot adapt, they have only themselves to blame. Nothing or no one can help them.

Why do you keep thinking it is merely my perception? I am at the age where all my peers, friends, lots of juniors I mentored over decades are middle aged IT professionals. It is my observation, not perception.

I think it is your perception since I have also observed that these folks have done pretty well for themselves, they've invested their earnings wisely and appear to be well prepared for any upsets that technology might throw their way. Since, my observation contradicts your observation, I call them perceptions.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

What is the big deal about people management in IT ? People management is required only where people are required in large numbers. There are a whole lot of people in IT industry with decades of experience who do not add any value to the ecosystem. They have not updated themselves with evolving technologies and because they have never been trained on the basics of engineering ( not in college where education is bad, not in their jobs where they just managed people) or the basics of sales, they wont have any role to play in future. This is the case with the majority. There are exceptionally capable people in small numbers in any category though.

Don't be too quick in judging others. As explained above, it is quite possible that they have some skills which their employer valued and hence they were paid the salaries they got. Just because you think they are unskilled, does not make them unskilled.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

I think it is your perception since I have also observed that these folks have done pretty well for themselves, they've invested their earnings wisely and appear to be well prepared for any upsets that technology might throw their way. Since, my observation contradicts your observation, I call them perceptions.

Don't be too quick in judging others. As explained above, it is quite possible that they have some skills which their employer valued and hence they were paid the salaries they got. Just because you think they are unskilled, does not make them unskilled.

Okay, on what is that judging too quick based on ? I am not pre-judging, I am judging based on facts. The mere fact that India does not have many good product companies despite the fact that India produces one of the highest number of S/W engineers is proof of the idea that our engineers of yesterday and today do not have the skill. They have skills which their employer valued, true. But the value on the skill was only because of boom period.
Its not that I am "thinking" they are unskilled. I am judging they are are "unskilled" in this engineering field. Whether they are skilled in amassing wealth, or buying real estate when its cheap or set for an early retirement is pointless in this thread.

The thread is about technical skills, not about the welfare or well being of the unskilled.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

Okay, on what is that judging too quick based on ? I am not pre-judging, I am judging based on facts. The mere fact that India does not have many good product companies despite the fact that India produces one of the highest number of S/W engineers is proof of the idea that our engineers of yesterday and today do not have the skill. They have skills which their employer valued, true. But the value on the skill was only because of boom period.

India is a developing country and most people need to work for their daily bread. So, they take up jobs with who ever is willing to employ them. Even if I am a good software engineer and have come up with innovative software projects in college, I need to leave all that and focus on whatever my employer tells me to do. To compare the number of software products produced by the developed countries with that in India is not sensible. However, I am very happy to note that of late, thanks to the easy availability of funding/better economic conditions, more and more people are now choosing to startup their own ventures, and foray into unexplored waters. Given a little time, I'm hopeful that Indian software products will also do well.

Its not that I am "thinking" they are unskilled. I am judging they are are "unskilled" in this engineering field. Whether they are skilled in amassing wealth, or buying real estate when its cheap or set for an early retirement is pointless in this thread.

The thread is about technical skills, not about the welfare or well being of the unskilled.

You are judging that they are unskilled. But who are you to pass judgement? The fact that companies are employing them for so many years and paying them hefty salaries suggests that they value the skills these employees possess, even if you disagree.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

A developer on the other hand( just how I thought about it, not about the article) can move over technologies quickly and always has a grip on the bigger picture. These are people who can grasp technology changes fast and often "develop" new stuff. When "developers" show the way, "programmers" can write the code.

Its the design of the systems that separates developers from programmers.

Your definition is exactly the opposite of what is considered the norm, at least in USA.

Bill Gates was a programmer, not developer. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Bill-Gates

http://www.dodgycoder.net/2012/09/q-...ogrammers.html
http://www.itworld.com/article/28235...ogrammers.html

I became a programmer in 1989, and I have always considered myself a programmer rather than developer. Programmers are self driven, innovative and creative techies who are obsessed with design, architecture and performance. Developers are more concerned with customer needs, deadlines, process compliance, SOWs, NCRs, etc. Naturally, programmers mostly stick with software product companies and developers are mostly in software service companies. I spent only 10% of my career in services and it drove me mad.

Programmers work best alone or in very small teams. Large teams usually are full of developers, and rarely any programmer. Programmers are the kind of people who build SaaS/PaaS/IaaS platforms. Developers are the kind of people who customise it for end users.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Maybe you should tie up with the colleges in your city and offer internships /after college courses so that the students learn those skills while still in college and don't waste more time after 4 years of useless education which teaches them no skills.

I had considered it 10-12 years ago for this very reason. However, I realised it will be waste of my time because college/students have no interest. At least 10% of the candidates I reject already have a placement in IBM/HP/Infosys/TCS, etc. They have been finding high paying IT jobs without any skills, why do the hard work? Then I tried to teach this to students who came for internship, but they just wanted certificates and no knowledge. An excerpt from an earlier post:

Originally Posted by Samurai

Among them only one had the making of an engineer. I suspect she did all the work of researching, learning and configuring the setup. Rest were only going through the motion, and looked eager to forget all this once their certificate is given. They seemed to be tolerating technology instead of getting exciting by it.

Therefore, I train the people I hire. I cannot sell this idea to colleges who are happy with their placement records.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

I think it is your perception since I have also observed that these folks have done pretty well for themselves, they've invested their earnings wisely and appear to be well prepared for any upsets that technology might throw their way. Since, my observation contradicts your observation, I call them perceptions.

I am talking about their career in IT, how it has became uncertain. You are talking about their real estate investment, which has nothing to do with their career in IT. In fact, they might need a fat salary to pay the multiple EMIs they have taken up. Any sudden slump in IT industry can grind the Real estate market into a halt. People won't have money to pay the EMIs, bank will foreclose loans, prices will fall, the RE investments will lost value.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

India is a developing country and most people need to work for their daily bread. So, they take up jobs with who ever is willing to employ them. Even if I am a good software engineer and have come up with innovative software projects in college, I need to leave all that and focus on whatever my employer tells me to do. To compare the number of software products produced by the developed countries with that in India is not sensible. However, I am very happy to note that of late, thanks to the easy availability of funding/better economic conditions, more and more people are now choosing to startup their own ventures, and foray into unexplored waters. Given a little time, I'm hopeful that Indian software products will also do well.


You are judging that they are unskilled. But who are you to pass judgement? The fact that companies are employing them for so many years and paying them hefty salaries suggests that they value the skills these employees possess, even if you disagree.

I thought we were talking about middle level managers who have zero technical skills and fat pay cheques. I dont know how daily bread is difficult to people with great real estate portfolio as pointed out before.

The Indian s/w giants for example are amongst largest employers in the world and they employee people with fat salaries world wide. They were up and operational and successful for instance before Google took off.
The idea about lack of infrastructure and underdeveloped nature of India in general is appropriate for any industry other than IT. We are not doing that bad to point it out as the reason for lack of mettle. We have number of people employed in IT comparable to any developed country, but we dont have anywhere near the output. Its just our too bad.

"The companies pay them high, hence they are technically skilled" does not sound like a fact.
Who am I to judge, well I am not answering that.
The current value of whatever is the skill you are talking about is not there for future, thats what I am saying. If they had been skilled in basics they could survive the future. They are not trained for that in college or in their profession.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Your definition is exactly the opposite of what is considered the norm, at least in USA.

Bill Gates was a programmer, not developer. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Bill-Gates

http://www.dodgycoder.net/2012/09/q-...ogrammers.html
http://www.itworld.com/article/28235...ogrammers.html

I became a programmer in 1989, and I have always considered myself a programmer rather than developer. Programmers are self driven, innovative and creative techies who are obsessed with design, architecture and performance. Developers are more concerned with customer needs, deadlines, process compliance, SOWs, NCRs, etc. Naturally, programmers mostly stick with software product companies and developers are mostly in software service companies. I spent only 10% of my career in services and it drove me mad.

Programmers work best alone or in very small teams. Large teams usually are full of developers, and rarely any programmer. Programmers are the kind of people who build SaaS/PaaS/IaaS platforms. Developers are the kind of people who customise it for end users.

Thank you for clearing that up, I may have been naive with the definitions.
I thought otherwise because some of the s/w service companies that I had known before had the word "programmer" all around and product companies usually called people as "developers". But its not the ideal way to derive definitions, I agree.
I am a programmer too as per your definition above.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

I thought we were talking about middle level managers who have zero technical skills and fat pay cheques. I dont know how daily bread is difficult to people with great real estate portfolio as pointed out before.

A middle level manager has also risen from the ranks, dude. He did't magically appear out of thin air, and once he is accustomed to a certain way of working, chances are that he will stick to that.

Originally Posted by Samurai

I became a programmer in 1989, and I have always considered myself a programmer rather than developer. Programmers are self driven, innovative and creative techies who are obsessed with design, architecture and performance. Developers are more concerned with customer needs, deadlines, process compliance, SOWs, NCRs, etc. Naturally, programmers mostly stick with software product companies and developers are mostly in software service companies. I spent only 10% of my career in services and it drove me mad.

Programmers work best alone or in very small teams. Large teams usually are full of developers, and rarely any programmer. Programmers are the kind of people who build SaaS/PaaS/IaaS platforms. Developers are the kind of people who customise it for end users.

Thanks for the links. the Dodgy coder link was particularly good. However, you must also admit that many people use the terms Programmer/Developer/Coder interchangeably. Your definitions are not a defined standard. Many programmers also call themselves as Software developers, especially when working as part of larger teams on large software projects.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Your definitions are not a defined standard. Many programmers also call themselves as Software developers, especially when working as part of larger teams on large software projects.

The whole confusion is because there is no standard definition. The description I gave was based on what is most accepted in elite programming circles, where they all call themselves programmers. The term Developer is mainly used in corporate environment, while the term Programmer is mainly used by computer scientists, hackers, hardcore system level people.