Can and Should Business Rules Save American Jobs?

I was involved in an intriguing meeting yesterday where the major concern is the loss of traditional American jobs, today and for the forseeable future.  The discussion began with how many IT functions are disappearing from the American landscape and whether and when corresponding business functions will do the same.  What does this mean for American businesses?  Should this be happening or are parts of it a mistake?

The discussion then centered on "Knowledge Management" with emphasis on capturing and managing the way American companies "think" and "build their businesses."  The discussion then talked about business rules as the way any company defines itself and stewards itself through changes.  A preliminary conclusion was that Knowledge and Business Rules Management should aim at core business logic and core business "personality" and be driven from core business values in the home country (or countries).  This will retain core business knowledge with the core business leaders while implementation and support can occur elsewhere.

This could be an explosive topic, on both sides.  So: Are BRs an asset that should be managed on-shore (in whatever country the on-shore is)?  Is anyone else concerned about the loss of such management to American (and other) businesses?  Are we giving away too much of the store for the good of the companies?

Barb

   

Comments

[Gene Weng]

Here is a related blog:

http://irvingwb.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/it_jobs_migrati.html

[Barbara von Halle]

Gene,

Thank you for this reference. I read some of the articles and studies there and they are enlightening. Here is another similar recent article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11571580/site/newsweek/

That said, it is encouraging to think there will be more IT jobs created, but at the moment, at least in NJ/NY, that is not so much the case. Of all of our corporate clients from 8 years ago locally, almost none of them have more than a handful of IT people left. Two other corporations announced IT layoffs in the past few weeks, too, so I suppose we are in the throes of the change where new IT jobs are not here yet. (Many IT professionals I know have changed careers from becoming doctors, nurses, to paralegals, and teachers!).

Regardless, let me re-focus my question better. Since this is a BR blog, are folks seeing BR Management or Decision Management or Knowledge Management as a focal point for retaining corporate knowledge in light of off-shoring and in light of baby boomer retirements? It has been suggested to me that this may be a more driving reason than even agility...that the *loss* of on-shore knowledge of how the business does its business (through its rules) is something to be greatly feared and may be more important than other reasons?

(The upcoming value of Knowledge Management was also touted by Bill Gates yesterday:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11020787/site/newsweek/)

So, does BR Management fit here? Is it part of the solution to retaining corporate identity (and growing it) in a global world? Is this a reason to make it a priority today? Comments anyone?

Barb

[Jeremiah]

Those are excellent questions you post, Barbara.

I was recently reading, The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman, and what you have mentioned here is dynamically reiterated through the book. As corporate entities become more and more global the very definition of the business changes to match the growth. Therefore, the BR Management side has no choice but to grow, and in what we see now, utilize off-shore resources, in order to facilitate this growth.

What I think we will see is where "Legacy" business knowledge may well stay on-shore, while knowledge that is gained and learned through global expansion, does not necessarily need to stay grounded on-shore. Using the obviously cheaper labor and vast resources of off-shore, businesses are able to leverage the shear strength and size of off-shore resources, to get and manage more of their business knowledge moving forward.

BR Management should absolutely stay with the business in the cases where the business needs to retain their entity. However, where they could leverage off-shore abilities is gather new business knowledge that would benefit them.

I am a strong advocate of keeping the resources here, as I am a resource that is in jeapordy of that particular off-shoring. However, after reading, The World is Flat, I realize that I need to restructure myself as a invaluable resource and value-add to a company, in order to maintain my stance for on-shoring. By utilizing the concepts and principals of your book, Barb, (Excellent book by the way, I keep pushing it on each of my clients so that they can leverage the STEP's and guidelines within it.), I have been able to create a need for a person like myself without having to worry (at least right now) about my job being off-shored.

[Gene Weng]

If the vision of business people control business rules is truely realized, then BR should save American jobs.

BR will NOT save IT jobs since jobs are moved to business sides.

Assuming most business people are still in US, BR should help to avoid this part of IT function to be out sourced.

[James Taylor]

An interesting topic for discussion. I posted a couple of times on how a business rules approach might help companies keep their core IP on-shore even while using offshore or other BPO like approaches for other elements. See http://edmblog.fairisaac.com/weblog/2006/02/offshore_backsh.html and http://edmblog.fairisaac.com/weblog/2005/12/business_rules_.html.

[Barbara von Halle]

Gene, Thank you, again for your insights in this regard. I find your recent comment most intriguing: IT roles moving to the business and whether the business will be in control of the rules. Fascinating and right on target, I think.

Some questions (would love your opinion).

(1) What do you mean for business to be in control of BRs....does that mean that they determine what the rules should be and then work with IT people or, at the other end, does it mean that they are able to update rules in production systems, or in-between?

(2) What should we (fellow bloggers) do to support the move toward business control of BRs? Is ample software available? Are ample methods and training available? How about books? Are skillsets available? How do we socialize this within our organizations to management?

(3) Do you think that most businesses today will go this route?

(Aside: I am working on a new BR book, for September publication, an anthology of experiences from other people...we have one whole section dedicated to the Business Side of Business Rules and one for the Technical Side of Business Rules. I think your comments are very relevant to this book and to its potential readership.)

[Gene Weng]

(1). To me, "for bussiness to be in control of BRs" means even more than maintain rules in production systems. It includes new development.

(2). The gap is clear there, in all aspects: software, methodology, training, skillset, and books. We have some very good books. But they are either too philosophical, or too technical. I wish your new book will fill this gap.

Looking forward to reading your new book!

[Neal McWhorter]

One of the key topics I talk to organizations about is that the relentless pressure to move IT jobs overseas is not going to lessen. Business rules aren't a panacea for this and truthfully there isn't a panacea. IT jobs are becoming ever more like assembly line work and once they are commoditized they will leave the US. But that doesn't need to be a terrible thing.

Automakers have seen that the amount of design work involved in developing new models has been increasing steadily. And models are now updated more and more frequently. As delivering automation solutions becomes a commodity, designing solutions that are innovative and responsive becomes a higher and higher priority. Business rules are a key piece of this capability.

The growth area in what we think of as the IT arena is going to be in two areas: "Analyst" work will shift into being something more akin to product design; and Architecture work will become something akin to industrial factory design. These are both high growth job areas that provide the vaunted "high skill, high pay" combination. But both roles require extensive skills and most individuals in IT will have to upgrade their skills to be able to fill these roles.

This kind of shift in work isn't really all that new, after all the U.S. was once an outsourcing location for the British Empire. But things are happening more quickly in our world so it is imperative that individuals see that their skills are what determines if they have an advantage over overseas competitors. Pushing to keep those skills up-to-date is essential to keeping those skills from becoming a commodity.

[Paul Vincent]

Neal is spot-on. IT jobs are morphing into (business) analyst positions, utilizing tools such as BRMSs, BPMSs, etc. This is really just completing the circle: in the 70s to 90s businesses started deferring the development of their complex business processes and rules to IT. Therefore the IT guys became the business experts, and the business just looked after the general strategy and policies! Now the IT specialists are being folded back into the business as "analysts".

Back on-topic, one of the end-user presentations at BRForum'06 was about off-shoring rule development - however this was more about BRMS implementation (eg rule template design), rather than rule management per se.

Another point is that with globalization, "off shore" is somewhat meaningless. Its just part of trade/skill balancing out across the globe. Whether corporations are being wise with their global investments / resources - that is a different question!