IT spending to plummet--just what we need?

Gartner is predicting a deep decline of 3.8 percent in IT spending in 2009, as ZDNet's Larry Dignan reports, which could be a blessing in disguise for enterprises, IT employees, and software vendors.

CIO.com points to a few ways in which budget freezes can help information technology, one being that it encourages IT to "(take advantage of) systems you've already sunk potentially millions (of dollars) into."

Rather than relentlessly seeking out the next big IT project, a better strategy may be to invest more deeply in existing projects that have yet to pay for themselves.

IT employees benefit for a related reason: people become strategic when technology becomes a tool, rather than an end in and of itself. The problem with a scattershot approach to IT deployments is that they tend to be shallow, leaving IT to quickly get them up and running, and then move on.

By investing more deeply in existing projects, IT becomes a people issue, which often leads to adoption of more open-source software. Open source is about investing in people, not merely technology. It values the creativity of the IT administrator working with the software, not simply her ability to negotiate a 20 percent discount on costly, cumbersome software "solutions" from Proprietary Vendor X.

So where does that leave vendors? The best vendors will grow more competitive in a recessed environment. This is good for their long-term viability, as well as their short- and medium-term bottom line. Vendors may not like to be squeezed on price, but it's a good exercise in removing the fat from the system.

Just look at how Red Hat has responded to the economic crisis. As noted in its recent earnings call, "Our value proposition continues to resonate with customers who are looking to cut costs and achieve a rapid (return on investment)." That value proposition is being honed even further in straitened economic times.

So be grateful, if you can, that tough times are upon us. They're certainly not pleasant, but they can be therapeutic.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

[phylum--2008]

OSS has a significant, well-earned place in the world of IT, regardless of whether the organization employing it is commercial, non-profit, or government.

However, it's really quite silly to think that any of these types of organizations ultimately would place more value in on the "creativity of the IT administrator working with the software", rather than the clearly more tangible value of "her ability to negotiate a 20 percent discount on costly, cumbersome software 'solutions' from Proprietary Vendor X." **Of course** the organization is going to place more value on the latter! Why would a business manager *want* an IT administrator to increase their level of proprietary knowledge -- knowledge that would cost a fortune to replace?

For the business world, OSS is not about cheaper software, "openness", or holier-than-thou RMS-isms; it's about flexibility and spreading risk.

This is why OSS gets the reputation for being annoying (in a manner similar to Apple); it's not the concept of the product itself that people find irritating, but rather the pie-in-the-sky irrationality of it's most vocal proponents.

[pentest]

Saving 20% on crappy software is valued higher then creativity?

No wonder American businesses are sucking the air out of the planet.

[MuleHeadJoe]

I've been an IT worker (system analyst, sysadmin, automation specialist) for almost 20 years now, and I can assure you in no uncertain terms that we technicians are viewed by employers as, at best, a necessary evil -- on the balance sheets we are an expense, and the corporate doublespeak referring to the mythical "human resource" doesn't change the fact that no business really wants to have us. Yes, we may be needed, but we are certainly not wanted.

Big non-IT companies are outsourcing their IT support at a record pace, and the big IT service providers are now off-shoring at a record pace. The economic downturn has in fact caused both outsourcing and offshoring to rapidly increase, and that means more and more IT workers are getting axe every day.

Any IT function that is not abstract or arcane enough (i.e., usually skilled / original programming) is subject to automation, and that has been true since day one (I'm an automation specialist, I should know), but do you know what's cheaper than automation? Trained monkeys. Apparently. Hence the rush to offshore formerly American jobs.

Younger workers in "developing markets" with much lower standards of living and much lower average wages are apparently cheaper (on paper at least, and only in the short run I'm sure) even though you typically need a half dozen of these generally inexperienced, low-skill foriegners to do the same work as one or two skilled Americans.

On a personal note, I hope and pray every day that the big chiefs that are slashing jobs in this country get discovered for the lying anti-American scumbags that they really are. There's no competitive advantage in shifting jobs offshore -- competitive advantage can only occur by raising the value proposition ... i.e., either reduce the cost to the customer, or increase the (percieved) value of the service/product sold ... and in no way, shape, or form is either of those things occuring with any of major players that are currently offshoring every job they can (*cough* IBM *cough*). Nobody is lowering prices, and nobody is providing more/better services/products for the price paid. It is all a sham, an internal marketing ploy ... lies generated by the executives to disguise their shameless greed and brutal disregard for their employees and our nation in general.

The offshorer saves some cash in the short term while at the same time directly and immediately harms the American economy by eliminating much needed money (fluidity) from the national economy. Americans without jobs are Americans that don't buy serivces and products ... it's a whole food-chain type situation but the so-called leaders of the big companies are focused (as usual) solely on short-term profits by reducing short term expenses, while at the same time they are blithely planting the seeds for long term loss of business.

Oh, and if it wasn't already obvious, yes I despise IBM. :-)

[Inconnux]

Back around 2001 I worked at a Millwork shop in Canada. One day a well dressed man from India came in and gave me his resume. He had no woodworking experience. I asked him what experience he had and he said that he was a computer programmer in India. He said that he only made around $5000/year and had to work long hours so he decided that he had to change careers! Pretty scary.

[Inconnux]

The biggest problem with OSS is the activist mentality. These activists remind me of Greenpeace, every statement they make I take with a HUGE grain of salt. This is a great opportunity for OSS, but the religious fervor of these activists are only going to hurt the cause.

[sanjayb]

Usually when money is tight, our company isn't looking at being creative and using OSS. We usually flip into a maintenance and support mode where we just fix and maintain our current systems. This results in very dull projects for the IT staff. So I don't think in our case a reduction in IT is any blessing in disguise.

[pentest]

You can use this time to be creative and upgrade systems for little or no cost.

Then, when things turn around your company can keep saving money.

You think going back to throwing more money at the same problems is going to keep your company afloat when it starts righting itself?

[kksing]

It is a fallacy that a switch to OSS is magically cost-free. Sure, there is no license cost, but there is still a very real cost in terms of migration, implementation and integration.

While I definitely agree that there may be cost savings in the future, the reality of a tight IT budget with little or no capex room makes such a move difficult and in some cases, impossible.

[pentest]

I know lots of companies with tight budgets who need to upgrade now, or very soon.

OSS is VERY attractive to them right now. Once established, they will likely not be able to justify getting back on the expensive, proprietary treadmill.