I would like to consider the implications of black empowerment in IT. The question everyone is asking is: Where to from here?
If we exclude hardware, networks, and anything else that can reasonably be wrapped up in a box and delivered with relatively little input from highly skilled IT professionals, an interesting dilemma appears in the misty world of IT and black economic empowerment.
Business systems solutions is that part of IT where we rely heavily on the expertise of skilled personnel, and far less on the availability of a suitable product (like a workstation, a cable, or a software package such as Microsoft Office) that can easily be plugged into a dynamic and changeable business environment.
To build and implement a business systems solution from the ground up, you would usually employ the services of project managers, business analysts and software developers. Consider that on average it takes four to eight years to train a competent project manager, business analyst, or systems developer. Of those generally considered competent, a small percentage will perform at a factor of up to 10 times higher than the rest. You will need a few of these!
Finding competent staff is difficult at best; finding the small, over-performing minority is like looking for bright spots in South African sport!
Now try and find a competent, experienced, and over-performing, previously disadvantaged candidate ... and it is through no fault of any disadvantaged person that this is virtually impossible in South Africa today. The truth is, there is not a company around that would not snap up these people at the drop of a hat. Those people who are out there have a lot of choice, and therefore come at a premium for cost-sensitive companies that want to remain competitive and survive tough market conditions.
The tragedy is that the overwhelming majority of South Africans engaged in business systems solutions development do not care a dot about skin colour, sex, creed, or any other characteristic that a human being may demonstrate while on his quest for peace and commercial benefit on this planet. All of us want to work with people that display talent, ability, and a respect for excellence, no more and no less.
Exploring the definition of a previously disadvantaged individual (PDI) also makes interesting reading. Depending on what you read, or when you make an enquiry, we are finding that generally, a "PDI company" means most of its shares are owned by PDIs. Usually wealthy or politically connected PDIs, one assumes?
Where does this leave the PDI community that has no political clout or financial backing? What about companies that employ mostly PDI professionals but retain non-PDI ownership? Giving away hard-won equity may not only be unfair on business owners, shareholders, and entrepreneurs; it may also upset other loyal employees who have made major contributions to the brand.
Overall, a declaration that all IT companies must suddenly demonstrate PDI credentials poses challenges that may be impossible to overcome in this difficult IT market.
Large, listed institutions throwing deals together for the privileged elite may make a politically correct statement, but it does not address a grassroots issue in a sector that sorely lacks qualified candidates.
Where is the solution? Perhaps more focus on the education system, generous bursary allocation for selected disciplines, and hard tax incentives for companies to train people who would otherwise not have been given the chance to prove themselves.
This surely reflects a reality in a complex and difficult profession that has proved time and again that the wrong professional skills will not deliver the goods.
Share
Editorial contacts