State of the Market

[sreed]

Here are govt stats on immigration visas:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...-mar-2023.xlsx

Looking at Q1 2023 (the most recent figures available), there were 20K visa grants in the categories of Senior or Specialist Worker and Skilled Workers (non-health).

Looking at the Q1 2023 occupations drill down, I count >600 in IT business analysts, architects and system designers, and easily >1000 in programmers and software development professionals. I know we are not all IT contractors here, but that does seem likely to be the stats of most interest on here. Take a look yourself if you want others.

Saying one thing and doing another? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

On top of this, you also have a number of people using student+dependent visas as a back door route to the job market, and more shady visas-on-sale kind of routes eg: where people come in on sponsored visas and then look for a visa in their profession.

[avonleigh]

Definite new tax year uptick on Jobserve. 46,000 jobs. If i recall correctly, the high last year was low in the 50s. The december lows were around 20,000.

Not seen any evidence of that in the testing world as yet. Always of the opinion that once you see a lot of new PM roles the rest will follow.

[Bluenose]

once Jobserve pops into the late 40s it represents a healthy market. The problem is its only just done that, from a low base, and it needs to be sustained over a period of time.

My burner phone, inbox and linked in are all dead currently.

[oliverson]

once Jobserve pops into the late 40s it represents a healthy market. The problem is its only just done that, from a low base, and it needs to be sustained over a period of time.

My burner phone, inbox and linked in are all dead currently.

Received another spec. by email this morning, out of the blue. A reminder of how things used to be, except despite not mentioning IR35, being for a bank (BAML) it definitely will be inside.

[dsc]

[...]biggest problem I see with SF is the low barrier to entry for expert, especially agile ones, Product Owners/BA's etc

This of course, good or bad, causes work............

As in it's full of people who know little about SF? they seem to be struggling with getting good SF devs, which seems odd to me, yeah fair enough you can get clueless Product Owners / BAs, but I always assumed devs need to know something to start.

[cojak]

What parts do you enjoy doing? Given the choice I would be looking at change management but for reasons I've never understood there is zero money in helping companies ensure the changes they make stick and the project is a success...

Because Senior Management aren’t prepared to devolve power and budget to juniors who can do the job better than them.

My career in Service Management involved moving from operations to design to strategy, to try and improve things ‘up-stream’. I then retired when I realised that Service Owners job was to take the blame when their service when belly up because of poor design and lack of budget to maintain and improve. They had no agency to do either.

[eek]

Because Senior Management aren’t prepared to devolve power and budget to juniors who can do the job better than them.

My career in Service Management involved moving from operations to design to strategy, to try and improve things ‘up-stream’. I then retired when I realised that Service Owners job was to take the blame when their service when belly up because of poor design and lack of budget to maintain and improve. They had no agency to do either.

You would have thought it was zero risk to management

1) if the project is a success take the glory for the successful project
2) pass the blame to the change experts who failed to achieve things.

I guess this is why you offload the project as a whole to a consultancy - still leaves an element of personal responsiblity (you picked Dave) where if you bring in a consultancy a all management involved in the project jointly get the blame.

[edison]

You would have thought it was zero risk to management

1) if the project is a success take the glory for the successful project
2) pass the blame to the change experts who failed to achieve things.

I guess this is why you offload the project as a whole to a consultancy - still leaves an element of personal responsiblity (you picked Dave) where if you bring in a consultancy a all management involved in the project jointly get the blame.

Since as long as I can remember, the failure rate of IT enabled projects has been around 60-70% depending on which stats you look at. Despite endless frameworks and methodologies, there doesn't seem to be anything likely to change that. There appears to be a bit less appetite for very long transformation programmes and some companies are now trying to be more 'agile' in the broadest sense with change.

Having worked on large programmes and projects as a consultant and as an employee, it never ceased to amaze me how there were usually so many consultants, tech and process people on board but so few on the change side. Maybe a comms person, one person from HR and a change manager if you were lucky in tandem with a PM.

A big reason is that there is always a tension between BAU operations and change in terms of priorities and resourcing, never mind resistance and inertia. Hence why consultancies get brought in but the results are usually depressing.

And due to repeated failed change initiatives, firms don't develop their own change management skills and the reliance on consultants goes on and on.

[CoolCat]

Since as long as I can remember, the failure rate of IT enabled projects has been around 60-70% depending on which stats you look at. Despite endless frameworks and methodologies, there doesn't seem to be anything likely to change that. There appears to be a bit less appetite for very long transformation programmes and some companies are now trying to be more 'agile' in the broadest sense with change.

Having worked on large programmes and projects as a consultant and as an employee, it never ceased to amaze me how there were usually so many consultants, tech and process people on board but so few on the change side. Maybe a comms person, one person from HR and a change manager if you were lucky in tandem with a PM.

A big reason is that there is always a tension between BAU operations and change in terms of priorities and resourcing, never mind resistance and inertia. Hence why consultancies get brought in but the results are usually depressing.

And due to repeated failed change initiatives, firms don't develop their own change management skills and the reliance on consultants goes on and on.

yes all of that is true.

best indication of whether a large project or programme will be a success, is whether enough of the senior people on it have regularly produced success in the past. not methodology, not BS on slides, or any of the rest of it.

the only real genuine transformation stuff now is mergers & acquisitions where there is real business imperative to do things to join together, improve, change, & sometimes separate out different businesses. sometimes you get something similar when a big org wants to setup a brand new division. the number of interviews I have been to where the interviewing side are convinced they are going to bring about great change by simply using a slightly different methodology is high, often they have not got the 1st idea what they are doing, it can be hard not to just openly laugh at them, but these people exist, and in the land of the blind the one eyed giant is king.

[SussexSeagull]

I was having a similar conversation while waiting for a meeting to start the other day and in the near 30 years I have been in the industry the tools and technology has come along leaps and bounds but actual delivery hasn't really improved.