Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud
-
@donaldlandru said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
I have heard this fallacy most from what I like to call "server huggers". Usually goes something like, "we just moved everything to xyz cloud and then IT was eliminated". Further digging typically reveals they didn't posses the skill set to manage the new cloud offerings and was replaced by an outsourced operation. Easy to appear that cloud is to blame; just as easy to debunk.
That's what I see a lot of. Different skill sets needed, the move being used as an excuse to clean house and so forth. Never seen a shop actually reduce head count. Some do, surely, but there is also all of those heads being hired by cloud vendors.
-
If the city chose to move to the cloud with everything it would save them a fortune and my company wouldn't be needed at all. They could hire a single person to manage it all and be done. An actual city employee. I think I'm the only person out of everyone I've ever worked with that would make themselves obsolete for the betterment of the company I was contracted to support.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
If the city chose to move to the cloud with everything it would save them a fortune and my company wouldn't be needed at all. They could hire a single person to manage it all and be done. An actual city employee. I think I'm the only person out of everyone I've ever worked with that would make themselves obsolete for the betterment of the company I was contracted to support.
Sure, but they could do that now, right? I mean let's be honest, you have techs who aren't very capable and even your manager / boss doesn't really know IT at all and is more in the way than being productive. If the city was making smart decisions and hiring capable companies, they only need one person without anything being cloud. You are comparing how the city operates today with on premises services and when you talk cloud you talk about overhauling the city's management process.
But ALL of the job losses you are mentioning are from process changes and none from going to the cloud. And you even mention that "everyone" would be eliminated, but then mention that people would need to be hired.
Going to cloud services doesn't sound like it would change anything. They've not moved from outsourced in insourced, they've not moved from several people to one, they've not done good management practices around IT - that they are or are not using cloud services seems irrelevant to the example case, right?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
you even mention that "everyone" would be eliminated, but then mention that people would need to be hired.
Right, because they need someone with the proper skill set to manage all of their newly acquired cloud resources. No one here including myself would have the necessary knowledge to do the job well.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
Going to cloud services doesn't sound like it would change anything. They've not moved from outsourced in insourced, they've not moved from several people to one, they've not done good management practices around IT - that they are or are not using cloud services seems irrelevant to the example case, right?
Right but the way they handle IT can change with each new mayor elected. All it takes is one yes to get things where they need to be.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
you even mention that "everyone" would be eliminated, but then mention that people would need to be hired.
Right, because they need someone with the proper skill set to manage all of their newly acquired cloud resources. No one here including myself would have the necessary knowledge to do the job well.
Same could be said for the on premises systems today, right? You keep talking about how little your company knows and is certainly not prepared to do a good job in the role that they are in. So cloud resources would be no different. You have to apply a different standard to the cloud scenario than to the current one to make a change in resources become obvious. Should they have one person that really knows the tech do it? Certainly. But that's the situation today, going to cloud doesn't change that. Your boss can't do the job needed today, why would it matter if he can't do it tomorrow. What has changed?
Also, isn't most of the current time spent on local equipment that would not be possible to go to cloud like desktops, switches, cabling, wireless and so forth?
-
@wirestyle22 said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
Going to cloud services doesn't sound like it would change anything. They've not moved from outsourced in insourced, they've not moved from several people to one, they've not done good management practices around IT - that they are or are not using cloud services seems irrelevant to the example case, right?
Right but the way they handle IT can change with each new mayor elected. All it takes is one yes to get things where they need to be.
And that's relevant to the conversation how? You appear to be conflating "a new mayor could change IT staffing" with "cloud makes people lose their jobs". In no case are you showing how cloud is a factor, only that people could lose jobs.
No one is questioning if jobs can be lost in IT. It's whether cloud is the thing that causes it. In your examples, cloud is always a red herring.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@wirestyle22 said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
Going to cloud services doesn't sound like it would change anything. They've not moved from outsourced in insourced, they've not moved from several people to one, they've not done good management practices around IT - that they are or are not using cloud services seems irrelevant to the example case, right?
Right but the way they handle IT can change with each new mayor elected. All it takes is one yes to get things where they need to be.
And that's relevant to the conversation how? You appear to be conflating "a new mayor could change IT staffing" with "cloud makes people lose their jobs". In no case are you showing how cloud is a factor, only that people could lose jobs.
No one is questioning if jobs can be lost in IT. It's whether cloud is the thing that causes it. In your examples, cloud is always a red herring.
Cloud would make us unnecessary. I'm just adding in the fact that we are already not worth the money they spend on us. If they adopted Cloud we SHOULD lose our contract when it comes time for renewal. I don't expect the city to know that though.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@wirestyle22 said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
Going to cloud services doesn't sound like it would change anything. They've not moved from outsourced in insourced, they've not moved from several people to one, they've not done good management practices around IT - that they are or are not using cloud services seems irrelevant to the example case, right?
Right but the way they handle IT can change with each new mayor elected. All it takes is one yes to get things where they need to be.
And that's relevant to the conversation how? You appear to be conflating "a new mayor could change IT staffing" with "cloud makes people lose their jobs". In no case are you showing how cloud is a factor, only that people could lose jobs.
No one is questioning if jobs can be lost in IT. It's whether cloud is the thing that causes it. In your examples, cloud is always a red herring.
Cloud would make us unnecessary.
How? You keep stating how it changes nothing, but then state this. Something doesn't add up. You are either unneeded today or still needed with cloud, right? You haven't shown anything that would change that.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
I'm just adding in the fact that we are already not worth the money they spend on us. If they adopted Cloud we SHOULD lose our contract when it comes time for renewal. I don't expect the city to know that though.
Right, already not worth the money. Cloud is a red herring. Cloud will not cost anyone their job as it doesn't change the underlying factor that provides the job.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@wirestyle22 said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@wirestyle22 said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
Going to cloud services doesn't sound like it would change anything. They've not moved from outsourced in insourced, they've not moved from several people to one, they've not done good management practices around IT - that they are or are not using cloud services seems irrelevant to the example case, right?
Right but the way they handle IT can change with each new mayor elected. All it takes is one yes to get things where they need to be.
And that's relevant to the conversation how? You appear to be conflating "a new mayor could change IT staffing" with "cloud makes people lose their jobs". In no case are you showing how cloud is a factor, only that people could lose jobs.
No one is questioning if jobs can be lost in IT. It's whether cloud is the thing that causes it. In your examples, cloud is always a red herring.
Cloud would make us unnecessary.
How? You keep stating how it changes nothing, but then state this. Something doesn't add up. You are either unneeded today or still needed with cloud, right? You haven't shown anything that would change that.
They need someone to do this now. You already know I don't think we are the right company--but we have the contract unfortunately. I'll be gone before it comes up for renewal though.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@wirestyle22 said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@wirestyle22 said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Who Has Lost Their Job to the Cloud:
Going to cloud services doesn't sound like it would change anything. They've not moved from outsourced in insourced, they've not moved from several people to one, they've not done good management practices around IT - that they are or are not using cloud services seems irrelevant to the example case, right?
Right but the way they handle IT can change with each new mayor elected. All it takes is one yes to get things where they need to be.
And that's relevant to the conversation how? You appear to be conflating "a new mayor could change IT staffing" with "cloud makes people lose their jobs". In no case are you showing how cloud is a factor, only that people could lose jobs.
No one is questioning if jobs can be lost in IT. It's whether cloud is the thing that causes it. In your examples, cloud is always a red herring.
Cloud would make us unnecessary.
How? You keep stating how it changes nothing, but then state this. Something doesn't add up. You are either unneeded today or still needed with cloud, right? You haven't shown anything that would change that.
They need someone to do this now. You already know I don't think we are the right company--but we have the contract unfortunately. I'll be gone before it comes up for renewal though.
Exactly, that's my point. Your feeling is that the current situation doesn't work. So going to cloud (or to anything else) that wouldn't work, doesn't change anything. The cloud is a red herring. The issues are all somewhere else.
