I’m off to Davos soon for the World Economic Forum. While I’m there I want to set out some more details on how we plan to boost Europe’s competitiveness – and fill tomorrow’s ICT jobs – with help from the private sector and others.
Many people today worry about the economic climate we’re in, and where the jobs are going to come from. But as the tide of unemployment rises, there’s still at least one island of hope – jobs for ICT practitioners, where demand is still strong, and growing.
That should be a great opportunity—but it risks becoming a liability. Because as it stands, the supply of people with the right skills is not growing in step. From 2006 to 2010, ICT graduates actually shrank by 10%; pretty soon, Europe could face one million unfilled ICT jobs. At a time of unemployment – wouldn’t that be absolutely crazy?
If we don’t act, we’re not just letting down our citizens; we’re denting our productivity and competitiveness. Businesses won’t have the human capital to prosper in the digital age, multinationals will go elsewhere, and European workers are missing out on a great hope.
But we can only solve this problem working together. The EU can’t do this alone; it needs input from the private sector, from education and training providers, all kinds of public authorities, and so on. From ICT and telecoms companies to companies across the economy; from public authorities to training and education providers. They can identify skills needs – but also offer placements, training, etc., to meet them. From top managers right down many different ICT specialists.
In Davos I’ll be outlining the key themes of our work. Training programmes that match skills needs; making mobility easier across the EU; certification; and raising awareness to attract more people to this exciting career path.
I’m working very intensely with other Commission colleagues on this; in March we will formally launch the programme. And I hope that private companies will be able to set out how they’re playing their part to fill the ICT skills gap – in Davos, in the run-up to our Conference, and beyond. After all – this affects their bottom line too.
For me, though, if we’re going to make the most out of the job opportunities of the digital revolution, it’s not just about learning particular skills: it’s about changing our whole way of thinking. A culture change: where we recognise and support being an entrepreneur as a valid career path. We need people willing to find their own way; innovators not afraid to take risks; those who don’t just apply for jobs but create their own. I’ve seen so much of this entrepreneurial spirit right here in Europe. And that is why we have an “action plan” to unleash Europe’s entrepreneurial potential.
At a time of crisis, ensuring the right skills and the right mentality can give Europe a better future, more competitive and with a better job market. That’s something I’m determined to support.
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
Why ICT graduates are shrinking even after 100 % internet penetration and usage of all digital products , ICT services all over Europe. Is this due to high pressure on ICT development or Lack of Interest In ICT areas. If this is the cause unemployed students can be converted to Real future ICT innovators. I can share my knowledge deployment frame work for your information,
Those at Davos do not really help the world to derive a future but only basically super wealth for themselves. Indeed the richest 100 people on the planet got even richer in 2012, adding $241 billion to their collective net worth, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a daily ranking of the world’s 100 wealthiest individuals.
Overall capitalism and its bed partner globalization are designed to fail the people. It fails the masses because it is regulated by a minority of ultra-powerful businesses and people across the world. In this respect 2000 businesses according to Forbes in 2011 controlled 51% of the total economic output/turnover of the world – in nominal terms $36 trillion and where the total economic global output was $71 trillion. But where these mere 2000 companies only employ around 180 million people that take the ‘cream’ of the world’s economic wealth. The remainder of the economically available workforce/people of the world, at around 3,200 million, are left with the crumbs on the table to get by. With this sort of global wealth distribution the western economic system cannot succeed and where year-on-year the outcome is increased poverty for one end product alone (based on UN figures). Indeed if we keep the capitalist system as it is and where eastern nations have now seen what happens, western society will decline at an unparalleled rate of knots over the next quarter of a century. For the writing is on the wall already and where the present incumbents (western political and business leaders) know no different and where their future economic strategies will ultimately fail us that live in the West. No ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ about this as developing circumstances will dictate this outcome with the present fixed mindsets of the powerful few. Indeed when history looks back on the decline of the ‘West’ they will say, wouldn’t it have been nice if the wealthiest in the West thought further and redistributed their wealth as wise men and women should have done’. If only those attending Davos could see this and realise that what they are about is the opposite of their perceived endeavours – basically bit-by-bit destroying the western dream and where each decade they add further nails to the socio-economic coffin of what was once the most powerful regions in the world. But no more and all down to a system of development that is destined to make a small minority of people richer than they can ever spend in their lifetime and the vast majority living basically and permanently on a shoe string. But the saving grace is that the emerging eastern economic powerhouses have seen the folly of western ideologies and economic ways. Hopefully they will not make the same huge mistakes, are far wiser and more knowledgeable in distributing future global wealth to their people, unlike in the West where hording the world’s wealth has become the norm for the few. By doing this they wreak havoc on most of the people throughout our planet, but where there will eventual be catastrophic consequences. Redistribution is therefore the only way to stop global wars and sustain the human experience. Let us hope also therefore that new eastern values have arrived at the 11th hour to save humanity and Western populations from its own inherent destruction. As natural unreplenishable resources decline at an alarming rate and the world’s population rises to most probably 10 billion or more by 2050 (UN figures have constantly been reassessed upwards for the past 20 years so at least 10 billion will be around), redistribution of wealth is paramount and it has to start now.
For if those gathering at Davos do not understand this, the western world can look forward to a very bleak future indeed. Can some humans be so mad as not to see this, probably they can when power and wealth are a far greater prize than the human experience/existence itself.
Dr David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation
Hi Neelie,
I dont really understand this. In the telecoms industry, there are few jobs and a recession as far as I know. I work as an engineer for the biggest equipment vendor in the EU. The company has been in big trouble for 5 or 6 years, and only seems to get worse. Nobody has payrises, huge and sweeping redundancies are commonplace. Im told by marketing and sales people that the industry in Europe is not growing at all, and big operators such as Vodafone and Telefonica are not buying anything.
So in summary, I wouldnt recommend anyone to join the telecoms industry at this moment. Which part of the ICT industry is this aimed at?
As IWA (International Webmasters Association) we are happy about this initiative that recall the action 58 of the digital agenda. Cen is doing a good job with e-competence framework, and we need all to work because this must be the reference for companies inside EU. We are also working for make recognize the ICT skills of CEN and our Web Professional Profiles (EC-F 2 based) worldwide with our international office in Pasadena (CA) USA.
http://blog.iwa.it/skills/competenze-digitali-neelie-kroes-lancia-iniziativa-digitalskills/
Could I ask for a little more attention for the fact that unemployment is at a high, not excluding experienced and qualified ICT personnel?
And that salaries have generally been declining while demands are up?
I totally agree that there is a substantial demand for ICT people, but (as I see it) only for low-cost ICT people.
I have experienced first-hand that age discrimination is the norm. After 40 it’s already difficult to be hired; after 50 it’s all but impossible. Most potential employers, and certainly in e.g. The Netherlands, simply don’t even want to seriously consider you after 50. They’ll just fire off a blanket “your experience-and-qualifications-don’t-match-our requirements” letter and leave it at that. Even if they haven’t been able to fill a vacancy for 10 months in a row.
What there is, is a shortage of low-cost (read “young”) ICT people who (in the view of the HR department) can be profitably employed from day one because their resume says they have certification X, are qualified for package Y and are trained in environment Z. From where I stand, employers (or more specifically: their HR departments) suffer from laziness, short-sightedness.
Laziness first: the fixation on ‘qualifications’. In the technologically changing world of ICT, knowledge specific to certain programming languages, software packages or software environments often becomes dated within three to five years. Constant learning is part of the job, (and usually happens invisibly from a budget point of view).
Unfortunately it requires real expertise from HRM departments to select people who are adaptable and willing to learn. And it takes time too, which is a problem when you’re on a tightly constrained budget.
Much quicker and easier then to simply tick boxes on a requirement sheet from keywords in an applicant’s CV. It has the additional benefit of requiring zero knowledge (of what the qualifications actually entail) and the assurance that your backside is covered (you did your due diligence). If this sounds a bit cynical, have a look around in a real recruitment agency. You’ll see this view isn’t nearly cynical enough.
Then short-sightedness. People over 50 are often assumed to be less flexible, less adaptive, more often ill and less productive than people in their twenties or thirties. Lower productivity as measured in raw ‘horsepower’ is indeed partly born out in several areas (see e.g. http://www.economist.com/node/2792423 ) but not so much in knowledge w0rkers. Older people may actually be more productive because they sometimes work smarter and usually produce fewer cock-ups.
Of course people’s productivity in ICT follows a skewed probability distribution in which age is just one of the parameters (far behind e.g. talent), and that’s why it should be possible to pay people on the quantity and quality of their output (rather than according to seniority or job title).
Of course that’s a tricky one for employers: remuneration on output is a contentious issue and they typically can’t keep tabs on people’s productivity (except in trivial cases) because managers they select are the cheapest variety too, and those lack e.g. the intellectual baggage to assess which ICT guy is or isn’t productive (they can clock people but they haven’t a clue of how hard a job is).
And besides, they don’t want shop-floor ICT people competing for the easy yet high-output jobs. No, much easier to pay per function title and by seniority, routinely offer an increment (that looks attractive in the market), and make people redundant if it becomes clear they’re overpaid compared to their productivity.
And just like factory production, it’s possible to outsource and off-shore ICT work away from Europe or the US to e.g. India or China. It’s not really more cost-effective, but it makes top management look good.
Cynical? Perhaps, but is it cynical enough to match reality?
If all this sounds a bit negative, consider this. Would _you_ embark on a career in engineering, science, or IT when you know this means you’ll have to compete head-on with a multitude people from India and China?
No? Then don’t be surprised if students choose law, business management, or corporate communication instead. So do I have to offer any suggestion as to what to actually do about all this? Well yes, here they are:
(1) adopt a more anglo-saxon attitude towards salary: you’re paid for the amount and quality of your work, not for your seniority (will come as a huge shock in countries where hierarchy is ingrained, (like e.g. France and Italy) or where it’s taboo to decouple salary from age (The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark).
(2) address the ’skills problem’ in the ICT sector:
(a) maintain a reliable list of in-demand skills (not the shoddy and self-serving BS you see so often)
(b) offer Internet-accessible ‘practice centres’ where job-seekers from the EU can gain free experience with low-brow but but expensive and high-demand software packages (e.g. SAP, ) and provide ‘required skill level’ lists for in-demand functions. No courses though. Just set up a few forums and allow people to gain credits and recognition by answering other people’s questions.
(c) offer examinations (at 10% of cost) for certificates that (even) HRM departments can use and let the tax office deduct the remainder of the examination fee after someone obtains an income in job related to the course.
(3) Make it easier for people to work as “entrepreneurs without personnel” by removing red tape. Now of course that red tape is there for a reason: protection of workers and preventing abuse of ‘pseudo-entrepreneurship’ as tactics for evasion of taxes and worker protection. So cut the red tape only for knowledge workers (easy criterion: people with an academic degree) by way of experiment.
There are lots of opportunity about new technologies , we just have to be the first ones who bring that technologies out of the university laboratories. We need to believe, now, that they are our future that will help us to make things better and more efficiently. We need to believe europenas can do it much more better then the other poor countries and even with less investments. It seems trivial but Europenas still don’t believe it, we are avverse to new technologies and there are too much interests for not changing and to let things the way they are. I am an etrepreneur and an engeener and i believe we can do it, we just need institutions help us to prepare the law and the right tools to make our little business ( in italy we have lots of small enterprises that makes 80% of the ICT markets) bigger and more effective on the market. We all trust in you Miss KROES.
Your views strike me as utterly conventional and remind me of advertising copy–trite platitudes with nothing behind them except empty wishful thinking: “Maybe they’ll buy our policy line”, etc.
Try to bear in mind this simple truth: You work for private corporate interests–
sometimes those private interests are masquerading as semi-public or public corporate interests but, whatever the double-talking Public Relations people say about it, in the end it amounts to working for private corporate interests, and in doing that in what are ways almost always to the severe detriment of any real public interest.
If the above escapes you, then consider: that is precisely why you’re allowed to hold your position. You don’t “get it” about the real character of what you do.
maybe governments can invest more in training older people who get fired because their industrie needs less people.
It’s usually quite hard to do a 100% career change, even if some industries are really waiting for certain kinds of employees…
Why, considering the overall famine of jobs, IT ones are usually less paid than others? And why, in certain cases, even large scale organizations still keep considering IT resources only as external or expendable resources? If internals do not master these fields maybe there should be the need of coping with it…
You can’t force people to start studying ICT. But maybe they are affraid that their job will be outsourced to India sooner or later?
It’s allway hard to get the right people to the right studies… Today ICT is hot. You start an ICT study and after 4 years you find out, not ICT is hot but something completely different…
Maybe more students should start allready working for potential employers before they start their study, so they have “reserved” their job…