Brian Manning, President, CSC in India

It’s a milestone year for this, the 20^th NASSCOM India Leadership Forum (NILF), and as I arrived at the Hotel Grand Hyatt in Mumbai to attend the annual showcase, the first impression that I got was that the event is not just about India anymore. I saw delegates who had come from all over the globe. The event has more than 120 speakers, and more than 2,000 delegates. The 2012 edition has hyper specialization as the core theme, and I am taking this opportunity to share what I see, hear and learn over the next few days about the trends in the industry that are sure to emerge at this great event.

Day 1 started with inauguration and Social Innovation Honors Awards, where Kapil Sibal, India’s Minister of Communications & IT, and NASSCOM executives Rajendra S. Pawar, (chairman), N Chandrasekaran, NASSCOM (vice chairman) and Som Mittal (president) were the key guests.

The session started with Som Mittal’s enlightening presentation where he disclosed that for FY 2013, export revenues from the IT and ITES sectors are expected to grow between 11 to 14 percent in U.S. dollar terms, whereas the domestic market is expected to grow by 13 to 16 percent. I also believe this to be the case. Another point he made was that direct employment in the IT sector is expected to grow by more than nine percent to reach 2.8 million jobs, with more than 230,000 of those jobs being added in FY 2012. Kapil Sibal started his speech agreeing to the point that IT sector plays a very important role in all sectors’ growth in India. I completely agree with him. I see no industry today that is not utilizing the power of IT.

There were a few more sessions that spoke about tapping the U.S. healthcare outsourcing market and the era of hyper specialization, which focused heavily on what technologies will come into play in these areas and how new opportunities are there for the taking. Sounds interesting and I am excited to learn more about these topics and contribute to the discussion throughout the event!

It was also interesting to hear about the story of technology and innovation — on and off the pitch — from a former cricketer, Sir Richard Hadlee. This shows that even athletes now remain in touch with technology. What else can I ask for!

NASSCOM has done a fantastic job organizing this event at the global level, and the management was simply great. Hats off to Som Mittal’s team. Day 1 is over and I am very much looking forward to networking with several new acquaintances over dinner. I’ll keep you posted with the latest updates.

‘Til then, have a good night from Mumbai!

David Moschella, Global Research Director, CSC Leading Edge Forum

In America, the combination of high unemployment and the start of the presidential election process has sparked a great deal of debate about how jobs are created, and lost. Nothing new there. Similar academic and populist debates have been part of every modern recession, as society seeks both strategies – legislation, fiscal and monetary policies – and scapegoats – corporations, machines, trade, foreigners, etc.

What’s different today is that information technology is now at the center of the discussion. Over the decades, we have grown used to thinking of IT as an engine of economic growth. But in the current marketplace of ideas, IT’s ability to eliminate jobs is getting a lot more attention than its capacity to create them. Whether this shift in attitude is warranted or not, it’s a potentially huge change in the way our industry is perceived. Moreover, unless the national unemployment picture improves considerably, concern over IT’s effect on jobs will likely increase sharply in 2012 and beyond.

President Obama moved the issue into the mainstream media in June 2011 when he remarked: “There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.” Never mind that ATMs have been around for decades (or that airport kiosks are used at check-in, not the gate), the President of the United States essentially said that technological progress is eliminating jobs, resulting in “some” level of structural unemployment, a potent phrase in economic circles.

Lem Lasher, Chief Innovation Officer, CSC

On cloud! On data! On cyber! On mobile!

On tablets! On social networks…okay, you get the point.

It’s December, and for those of us in IT, ’tis the season for predicting what trends will be dashing through enterprises in 2012.

IDC and Gartner recently said “it’s beginning to look a lot like” a cloud and big data dominated 2012.

Here are some of the ways I see IT “decking the halls” of businesses next year:

Emergence of Advertising Inside Cloud Enterprises. Most of the consumer cloud — from Facebook to Gmail — is paid for by advertising. Companies will deploy the consumer model inside the enterprise, providing IT at subsidized rates or for free as companies look to reduce their IT costs.

Enterprise Data Walls Come Crashing Down. Companies have lots of firewalled data on customer spending, purchases, satisfaction and so forth but lack a predictive picture of what clients will buy more of or less of in the future. The walls between the data will come down now and companies will understand the message contained within currently discrete data.

Threats to Slow IT Investment. Increasing fear among businesses and individuals of hacking threats will cause a reduction in the gross amount of spending on and adoption of IT. Corporate funding will be diverted to expanding physical security protections, IT security measures and employee education.

War for Data Leads to Proprietary Systems. Technology companies know the gold is in owning the customers’ data and digital technology development will swing from open systems to proprietary systems.

IT Will Operate Like a Business within a Business. While historically IT has operated as a service center to the rest of the organization, businesses will demand that IT function like a business within a business. Because of the pervasiveness of IT, it will grow regardless of the economy, increasing its share of corporate costs. This will lead to a drive for efficiency and expedite the shift of IT to India.

Do you see what I see? Despite some potential for IT staffs receiving buckets of coal for budgets over the next year, IT’s development in the near term will be jolly, especially when you consider that the number of “toys” connected to the Internet will surely continue to dramatically increase in the coming weeks and months (another prediction for being such a good audience).

In all seriousness—there is positive acceleration in the multitude of ways global enterprises are deriving value from technology. Come 2013 it will be interesting to see how many of these, if any, have become reality and what global trends are influencing the next wave of IT evolution.

Have yourself a merry little 2012!

Mark Rasch, Director of Cybersecurity and Privacy Consulting, CSC

On October 10, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a proposed law, SB 914, which would have required the police to obtain a warrant to search the cell phones, laptops or tablet computers of individuals who are arrested or detained by the police and thereby reversed a California Supreme Court decision in People v. Diaz 51 Cal. 4th 84; 244 P.3d 501; 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105; 2011; Cal. LEXIS 1 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Jan. 3, 2011).  Under the Diaz decision, the court ruled that the police interests in both protecting themselves from physical harm and preventing the destruction of evidence entitles them to seize and then search the entire contents of any device found on or near the person of a detainee. But what happens when these personal devices have corporate information on them?

Enterprise mobility and the idea of bringing your own device (BYOD) to work are on the rise within enterprises today. Couple this with the advent of new cloud technologies adopted specifically for portable mobile devices, and you have a situation where, ultimately, police may search more than your purse or pockets on a routine traffic stop. They may search — without a warrant — the contents of all of your employees computers at home and in the office, and everywhere on the Internet that your mobile device has stored data — including what is stored on an enterprise cloud.

The rationale behind the searches is what is called a “search incident to a lawful arrest.”  When police detain someone, they are entitled to search both that person and items near that person for self-protection (look for weapons) or to prevent the destruction of evidence (gambling records on “flash” paper).  What the court failed to consider in the Diaz case is the nature of a modern cell phone and other electronic devices, from iPhones and iPads to thumb drives, laptops, and “cloud devices.” Unlike something similar to an alphanumeric pager, modern devices that people keep on their person reveal a tremendous amount about their owners and often it is highly likely that it will reveal a lot about the organization that they work for — all of which could be evidentiary in nature — for good and for bad. Moreover, cloud-enabled or enterprise devices may simply act as portals to even greater volumes of information, and may store passwords to enterprise services that may be located in a remote location.

Now we do not suggest that police should be denied access to this treasure trove.  Rather, they should not be permitted access to it automatically by virtue of the fact that someone had the device with them at the time they were detained.  A warrant, probable cause, or some showing of an immediate need to search without such a warrant should be required.

This is particularly true when you consider the fact that, as The Washington Post recently reported, there are more than 150 minor offenses for which police can and are instructed to arrest you for in just Washington D.C. If your car has expired tags you can be arrested; and your cell phone, laptop, iPad or other things can be seized and searched. Other “arrestable” offenses include things like not having your dog on a leash and climbing a street light. In many states, the police may simply approach anyone, ask them to produce identification documents, their full true name, address, date of birth, and where they are going and what they are doing; and if they fail to adequately provide this information they can be arrested and then searched. In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a person can be detained even if the detention was a “pretext” to conduct an otherwise unlawful search (arresting people in D.C. for not using a turn signal because they wanted to search the car), and in 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court held that a mother could be arrested (and her car searched) for not wearing a seat belt – an offense which carried only a minor fine. The message here then is that if the police WANT to search your phone, laptop, iPad or cloud device, they can probably find an excuse.

It is difficult to see how an iPhone could be confused for a weapon, and certainly the police would be entitled to examine the device under the “search incident” rational to ensure that it is, in fact, just a phone.  As the dissenting Judge pointed out in Diaz, “there is apparently no app that will turn an iPhone or any other mobile phone into an effective weapon for use against an arresting officer.” Modern cell phones contain too much information to be the subject of routine warrantless searches, especially when the justification is that they might be a weapon. On a personal level it is obvious what these devices contain — contacts, photos, text messages, etc — but as a mobile extension of an employee’s office they can reveal product roadmaps, sensitive corporate materials, and large quantities of proprietary and confidential information.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg.  As storage capacity of mobile devices increases, they are capable of holding every document, note, video and communication of an employee. If company data is on or accessible on a device held by someone who is detained, all that data can be examined by the cops. There appears to be no limit to the scope of the “examination” conducted by the police; having lawfully seized the device, there is no reason that they could not “mirror” or image the device and its contents, and then share the contents of that device with anyone they choose.

More distressing is what happens as storage and processing are moved from the mobile device to the cloud. The smart-phone will become a portal to cloud computing, cloud processing, and cloud analysis. The device will store a userID and password that will connect automatically and seamlessly to a server in a remote location, which can contain virtually everything. Under the “search incident to the lawful arrest” doctrine, law enforcement officials may assert a right not only to search the device without a warrant or cause, but to search everything on the cloud accessible by the device. Indeed, they may not be able to make such a distinction. The arrestee’s “grabbable reach” extends from his or her pockets into the cloud.

Courts need to understand that computers are not mere storage devices.  Just because I can search your briefcase at the airport does not imply that I should be permitted to mirror the contents of your hard drive, or log into your cloud server. The volume and nature of the device reveal things that need to be protected from prying eyes. Certainly there can be evidence of crimes — even serious crimes — on such devices and in that case, the best course of action is for the police to obtain a proper warrant to search them. But the need to prevent guns, knives and bombs from being used simply does not apply to bits and bytes.

Susan Pullin, Vice President of Corporate Responsibility

“Corporate Social Responsibility isn’t about giving money away and adopting the latest cause of activists. CSR and sustainability are approaches to business operation and execution that build employee engagement, improve environmental performance, create positive social impact, enable operational efficiency, reduce cost, foster innovation, strengthen relationships with customers and consumers and ultimately . . . create business advantage.”

—David Stangis, VP of CR for Campbell’s Soup; from, Thriving on the Value of Vice: Stop Making Too Much of CSR by Aman Singh

There are many opinions about the real value to a company of corporate responsibility (CR). Aman Singh recently wrote for Forbes about these contrary opinions and posed the question: “Are we fighting over semantics or strategy?” She went on to consider how stakeholders often view CR. Is it perceived as something that is disconnected from markets, profits and capitalism itself? Is it typically misinterpreted as a cost, with some seeing CR as little more than “giving away money and adopting the latest cause of activists”?

As we look at this debate, one point is clear:  if CR is perceived anything but a contributor to top-line growth, then stakeholder opinions will be negative and the value of CR is misunderstood.

So what is the business case for CR? The evidence indicates that companies that invest in their communities tend to have a better focus on long-term growth and consequently they do better in the marketplace.  Although the CR vs. capitalism debate continues to rage, fueled by University of Michigan Professor Aneel Karnani’s controversial editorial in the Wall Street Journal, “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility” — investment firms appear to think otherwise. Bloomberg has created its own sustainability group with the remit of investigating a company’s sustainability prior to advising investors on their business viability.  They are measuring the sustainability of a company as another indicator for the quality and effectiveness of the management execution.  Along similar lines, Singh quotes Paul Herman, CEO of HIP Investor as saying, “Research from Wharton has shown measurably that companies that help solve social and environmental problems enjoy a higher shareholder and portfolio value.”

Surely, if you are investing in your community, you are creating relationships and building trust. We know that organizations prefer to do business with people they know and trust. If you demonstrate you care about the management of your resources and your effect on the environment, then you are being a good steward. Your client could extrapolate that this company would then also be a good steward of the business they put into your trust.  And if you care about your workers’ health and safety and are interested enough to invest in their training and development, you demonstrate your commitment to nurturing and retaining talented employees, another indication of business savvy.  All of these attributes have the potential to lead to business growth built on so strong a foundation.  I believe the business case for CR is that by being corporately responsible we are stimulating the environment for business growth.

In this respect, communicating to the marketplace is essential, and publishing an annual CR report provides us the right forum to tell the CR stories behind our global enterprise. In an environment where investors and clients are evaluating a much broader array of data before they decide where to spend their money, it makes good business sense to be as transparent as possible.   It is one thing to say we have a focus on sustainability, because it is the right thing to do.   But we are also convinced it is the right thing to do to grow our business.

Here is a link to our new 2011 CR Report, The Human Imprint. Please take the opportunity to read it and learn more about CSC. We are a company full of passionate people who bring our values to work each day, wherever we are in the world. In the report, we tell many of our stories about the undeniable links that bind our CR commitments and our business performance together and this contributes to our top-line growth.

Sam Visner, Cyber Lead Executive at CSC and Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University

The Washington Post report on the suspected North Korean cyberattack is troubling in a number of ways. If true, the attack signals that commercial institutions are – as many have suspected – the targets of weapons-grade, state-sponsored cyberattacks and exploits. Such attacks and exploits mean that commercial institutions need to consider, and probably to employ, the same level of cybersecurity protection and the same level of sophistication in their defense as is becoming the norm in the national security community. In the past, financial institutions had considered cyberattacks as a “cost of doing business” and had mitigated the effects of these attacks on an “actuarial” basis, i.e., building a financial position that took into account the losses these attacks represent. Such an approach is less viable every day. More sophisticated attacks and exploits can do more than draw funds from a bank; it can hinder its very operations; it can jeopardize the interests of numerous customers, and it can compromise a bank’s intellectual property and competitive position. In can even destabilize a financial institution, assuming sufficiently clever and malicious manipulation of a bank’s data. The story from the Washington Post points to South Korea’s Internet connectivity as a characteristic of that country’s financial industry. In the future, this level of connectivity will be the global norm, and banks will have to find more ways to use global connectivity to their advantage, and to the advantage of their customers. Banking products and services will depend on global connectivity. Indeed, mobile banking will require this connectivity at a level that significantly surpasses today’s online banking activity. As a result, banks throughout the world will face the same situation as those in South Korea. The risks and threats of an online environment will be unavoidable.

Though not necessarily good news, this kind of report is useful in that it can help catalyze disciplined thinking and effective action to safeguard our financial institutions. Banks can build information architectures that are more intrinsically secure. Banks can “bake in” designs that impose stronger rules for data exiting their systems. They can move beyond an actuarial approach to hardening their systems, and to investing in tools to find anomalous system behavior. Indeed, there will be little choice but to engage in these approaches. Banks can and should work with government authorities to understand cyber threats, both in terms of the activities of criminal organizations and in terms of the technologies they must master on behalf of their customers and themselves. Banks and government authorities must work together to improve the level and quality of information available about global cyber criminal activity. Indeed, overcoming, this “data crisis” in which cyber threats are both under-played and over-hyped, is an urgent priority.

For better or worse, global banking will encounter global cyber threats. Overcoming and managing these threats is an unavoidable responsibility. The best institutions will accept these responsibilities and turn that acceptance into a competitive advantage.

Jason Lee, Director, Global Institute for Emerging Healthcare Practices, CSC

Congress and the President delivered legislation in early August that averted a potentially “catastrophic” default on U.S. debt obligations. In a deal that some news analysts have called a “Greek Tragedy,” the debt ceiling was raised in exchange for bipartisan agreement to reduce the federal budget by the same amount over the next decade.  This is certainly a case where the devil is in the details.

The first part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 establishes budget caps in federal discretionary spending over the next decade.  The second part authorizes a so-called “gang of 12” (a joint committee of a dozen Members of Congress, half from each party and half from each body) to propose at least $1.5 trillion in additional cuts over ten years.  It can recommend any kind of deficit-reducing measures, including changes to Medicare and Medicaid, the massive entitlement programs that escaped untouched in the first part of the law.

If legislation to enact at least $1.2 trillion (not a typo) in additional spending cuts does not result by mid-January 2012 from joint committee action, then automatic across-the-board spending cuts will take effect beginning January 2013, affecting defense and non-defense budgets about equally.  Cuts to the big health care programs are padded by the recently enacted debt bill, which limits Medicare cuts to no more than 2 percent each fiscal year for ten years, and exempts Medicaid and CHIP entirely.

But this is no cause for celebration.  Some Medicare providers operate on less than 2 percent positive margins serving Medicare patients.  Moreover, this potential reduction must be considered in light of two (or even three) other factors that could affect providers in the near term.  One is a significant reduction in physician fees required by sustainable growth rate (SGR) legislation absent a “doc fix” bill.  Another is the implementation of various accountable care payment modifications included in the Affordable Care Act and subsequent administrative rule making (see this new CSC white paper).  A third is the uncertainty linked to growth reduction plans to be proposed by the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), slated to go into effect in 2015.  In short, providers and many health plans (not to mention millions of beneficiaries) are concerned about the double, triple or quadruple whammy that could substantially change this highly popular federal program whose costs have run amuck.

What are the implications for healthcare?  At one extreme, providers will go bankrupt and millions of seniors will be unable to get care.  At the other, providers will buckle down and figure out how to operate more efficiently and effectively.  More likely, some providers will operate with reduced margins, others will innovate and offer value propositions, and still others will voluntarily exit the Medicare market hoping to concentrate on more lucrative sources of payment.

Another perspective is that squeezing providers by reducing government health care program spending just accelerates cost shifting to the private sector – which is reflected in high premiums, higher self-funded plan costs, and higher out of pockets costs for individuals

Future funding obligations for Medicare and Medicaid constitute about 23 percent of federal spending.  This amount is five times greater than that for Social Security.  So how can the powerful debt reduction panel—the gang of twelve—not consider mechanisms to reduce the cost of the Medicare and Medicaid programs?  They will.  We now experience a calm before the storm as politicians, powerful interest groups, vaulted thought-leaders, and perhaps the mass public (the elderly) prepare for a period of vigorous debate.

David Moschella, Global Research Director, CSC Leading Edge Forum

In an era of both increased sourcing and new technology proliferation, Enterprise IT organizations are deciding what skills they should and shouldn’t retain in-house. The future mission of Enterprise IT is clearly changing, but the nature of the change is not particularly well understood or articulated. Forbes recently published an article that discussed how disruptive forces, such as cloud computing, are influencing the role of CIOs.

It is evident that Enterprise IT is likely to change over the coming years, but what do these changes mean to the skills, competencies and cultures that firms need to retain and develop?

We see four new models emerging to replace the way IT departments traditionally organized themselves:

1.) The Studio model. The metaphor is that of a Hollywood Studio where a variety of skills – directing, acting, cameras, sound, lighting, etc — are brought together in flexible, ever-changing teams to take on sophisticated projects. In this model, IT will be increasingly expected to work seamlessly with scientists, engineers, marketing professionals and others to deliver projects of high strategic value to the business.

2.) The DIY model. This metaphor comes from stores such as Home Depot in the US or B&Q in the UK. These stores provide a huge range of goods (like the IT marketplace itself), but a key part of their value proposition is their knowledgeable staff who provide “free” information and advice. Analogously, many employees and departments will increasingly do their own IT, but will occasionally need expert support.

3.) The Process model. No one understands the details of many key business processes better than Enterprise IT. In most cases, it is the underlying sequence of information processing steps that defines how a business process actually works. Increasingly, IT will take responsibility, and even ownership, of end-to- end business processes, greatly strengthening the CIO/COO relationship.

4.) The Stewardship model. The word, steward, has many connotations, but we particularly like its root meaning as a “keeper.” In the past, this role has been largely focused on information security and associated risks, but going forward, it will expand to include issues such as information architecture and master data management, especially in firms that seek to be information and data-driven.

The opportunities in information technology have never been greater, but only for those organizations that embrace a much more front-of-the-firm future. Read more about the changing nature of business in our Future of Retained IT report.

Jim Sheaffer, President, North American Public Sector, CSC

The U.S. government earlier this week gained two valuable aids for its transition to new technologies enabled by cloud computing. TechAmerica, responding to requests and encouragement from the Obama administration, released a set of 14 recommendations to guide government through this transition, along with a “Buyer’s Guide” for federal agencies carrying out the administration’s Cloud First policy.

I am personally proud of these two products because I have been privileged to lead some of the efforts that produced them. As I wrote in a previous post, I have served as one of two vice-chairs of TechAmerica’s Commission on the Leadership Opportunity in U.S. Deployment of the Cloud, otherwise known as CLOUD2. The commission comprises 71 IT leaders, mostly from industry, who are helping the government understand how best to move forward in the inevitable – and ultimately highly beneficial – shift to the cloud.

The Commission has undertaken this work because we believe, in the words of Michael Capellas, chairman and CEO of VCE and the Commission’s co-chair, “Faster adoption of cloud computing will strengthen the United States’ leadership position in the global marketplace and ignite creation of jobs that will be in high demand over the next decade.”

Cloud computing is a highly disruptive technology that enables innovative new ways of doing things.   The potential improvements in productivity, entrepreneurial growth and our standard of living are enormous.  The Commission’s 14 recommendations address current barriers to adoption, innovation and growth in the cloud. Some of these barriers have prevented government agencies from moving to the cloud; others have hindered commercial deployment. The recommendations cluster around four themes: (1) Trust, (2) Transnational Data Flows, (3) Transparency and (4) Transformation.

Trust and transparency are familiar issues with respect to the cloud.   Work remains to be done to strengthen security, identity management and information sharing in the cloud.  Also, metrics for cloud offerings must be developed so that customers can understand what they’re buying.

The transnational nature of the cloud leads quickly to matters of national sovereignty and international law. A Brookings report released earlier this week explores the collision of cloud computing and export-control laws, but the difficulties hardly end there. The Commission’s recommendations in this area are complex. They also are urgent. The United States is both a major consumer of the cloud and a leader in cloud markets and innovation. If we are not proactive in addressing issues of transnational data flows, we may impede the global process of cloud adoption.

A major focus in the Transformation area is the federal procurement process, codified in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). The Commission’s research found that FAR is flexible enough for acquiring cloud services. What’s needed is more a change in mind-set not only among agencies, but also Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We further recommend establishing fiscal incentives to encourage agencies to implement cloud solutions. Improvements in infrastructure are also important, including the move to IPv6 – the cloud depends upon reliable and modern networks.

Finally, transformation cannot happen without education and training. Transitioning to the cloud will require new capabilities for business and agency leaders, acquisition and IT workforces. We recommend that government, industry and academia continue to collaborate to develop and distribute the necessary educational resources.

I feel strongly that the work of CLOUD2 is important. The U.S. can achieve global leadership if we act boldly and create an environment of cooperation among government, academia and the private sector.  By embracing the cloud, government can demonstrate, through example, the unprecedented opportunity this transformational technology offers to improve government performance and reduce IT costs.

Yogesh Khanna, Vice President, Chief Technology Officer, CSC

The Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI) went mainstream last week when the New York Times published an article on the subject. Most of it was old news to the federal IT community, but it was probably new information for the rest of the world.

Aimed at readers who do not live and breathe high tech, the article provided a lot of context about data centers and cloud computing. It was accurate, useful context as far as it went. But I found myself wishing for a richer picture concerning FDCCI’s impact on jobs. That may be too much to ask from an article like this one, but the probable future of the IT profession is more complex and interesting than a simple “tens of thousands of jobs will most likely be eliminated.”

There is indeed a general belief among COOs and CFOs that consolidating data center operations and adopting cloud computing will reduce the staff needed to manage IT operations. There are plenty of examples in Industry that validate this belief. But the role of IT professionals will also evolve.

Even as infrastructure and workloads migrate into the cloud, IT professionals will still be required to manage and integrate cloud-based application services. But the IT professional of the future will have to be much more business centric, and will need “soft skills” to communicate with the business managers and refine the business models that define cloud computing.  Rather than managing inefficient, underutilized infrastructure and business applications, the future IT professional will collaborate with key stakeholders and strategic vendor partners to co-create business value.

IDC predicts that as a result of cloud computing, there will be fewer large-scale contracts for outsourcing functions as well as less spending by government agencies on custom application work.  Competition by the largest vendors will focus on consulting, implementing and managing private clouds, and small vendors will continue to focus more on “traditional” IT. [IDC, Government Insights #GI226454, January 2011]

This evolution will lead to job growth and present opportunities to a new generation of IT professionals who can provision and manage a set of highly integrated services on a virtualized and highly automated infrastructure that can be configured using easy-to-understand business rules.

So while the adoption of cloud computing may have a detrimental impact on IT jobs in the near term, the future looks bright for IT professionals.