It is often said that people are the most important resource in any organization. This is certainly true as it applies to systems management. Smooth-running infrastructures are built with robust processes and reliable technologies. But before procedures and products are put in place, first must come the human element. Skilled professionals are needed at the outset to develop plans, design processes, and evaluate technologies; then they are needed to transform these ideas from paper into realities.

This chapter describes various methods you can use to staff an IT infrastructure with appropriately skilled individuals. We start out by looking at how to qualify and quantify the diversity of skill sets required. Next we discuss ways to assess the skill levels of current onboard staff and some not-always-obvious alternative sources for staffing you can use if needed. We then move on to some helpful tips on using recruiters, landing the ideal candidate, and retaining highly sought-after individuals.

Competent IT professionals who are both well-trained and highly experienced in the disciplines of systems management are in short supply and large demand. This chapter offers effective approaches to meet this ever-increasing challenge.

Most newly proposed IT projects begin with a requirements phase. Staffing for systems management also has a requirements phase in the sense that necessary skill sets and skill levels need to be identified and prioritized early on. A skill set is defined as technical familiarity with a particular software product, architecture, or platform. For example, one enterprise may use primarily IBM mainframes with IBM’s information management system (IMS) databases while another may use mostly Sun Solaris platforms with Oracle databases. The skill sets needed to implement systems management functions in these two environments are significantly different.

Within a skill set there is another attribute known as the skill level. The skill level is simply the length of experience and depth of technical expertise an individual has acquired and can apply to a given technology. The process of determining and prioritizing the required skill sets and levels has several benefits:

Developing a skill set matrix that is customized for your particular environment can help simplify this process. Table 3-1 shows an example of a skill set matrix for a relatively typical mainframe environment. The first column describes the major areas of focus for which systems management functions would apply and for which staffing would need to be considered. These major groupings would obviously differ from company to company depending on their own particular area of focus. Similarly, the platforms may be different for different enterprises. Next are the five groupings of skill levels, starting with the least experienced intern level and progressing to the senior and lead levels. The value of a table such as this is that it helps to visually qualify the skills that will be needed to implement selected systems management disciplines. The table can also be used to quantify how many individuals will be needed for each skill set and level. Occasionally a skill set and skill level requirement may amount to less than one full-time person. In this case, a decimal portion of a full-time equivalent (FTE) is commonly used to represent the staffing need.

Table 3-2 is similar to Table 3-1 except that it applies to a midrange environment rather than a mainframe one. Several of the platforms have consequently changed, reflecting the difference in environments.

Table 3-3 applies to a client-server environment. The two major platforms are UNIX and Microsoft NT; each platform is delineated by manufacturer. The manufacturer entry for NT is designated as “various” because the skill set for NT tends to be independent of the supplier.

Once we have determined the level and set of skills essential to supporting a particular systems management function, we need to identify potential candidates who have acquired the necessary experience. The first place to look is within your own company. Surprising as it may sound, some firms immediately look outside to fill many IT infrastructure openings rather than pursuing internal staff. Some believe the positions may be too specialized for someone who has not already obtained the skills. Others may feel that the cost and time to retrain is not acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that many companies enjoy unexpected success by redeploying onboard personnel. Potential candidates who are already on board usually are proficient in one or more technologies, but not necessarily in the systems management function being implemented. The more similar the new skill sets are to a person’s existing ones, the more likelihood of success. For instance, the discipline being implemented may involve the performance and tuning of servers running a new flavor of UNIX. Onboard system administrators may be very capable in the performance and tuning of a different, but similar, version of UNIX and thus could easily transition to the new flavor. Redeploying a database administrator into the role of a systems administrator or as a network analyst may be a more challenging.

Being able to predict which onboard candidates can successfully transition into a new infrastructure role can be an invaluable skill for IT managers facing staffing needs. I developed a rather simple but effective method to help do this while filling staffing requirements at a major motion picture studio. The method evolved from lengthy analyses that I conducted with the human resources department to identify attributes most desirable in a transitioning employee. After sorting through literally dozens of very specific characteristics, we arrived at four basic but very pertinent qualities: attitude, aptitude, applicability, and experience. While the definition of these traits may seem obvious, it is worth clarifying a few points about each of them.

In my opinion, attitude is the most important feature of all in today’s environment. It implies that the outlook and demeanor of an individual closely matches the desired culture of the enterprise. Some of the most brilliant IT programmers and analysts have become hampered in their careers because they have poor attitudes.

Exactly what constitutes an acceptable or proper attitude may vary slightly from firm to firm, but there generally are a few traits that are common to most organizations. Among these are the following:

This last trait contrasts with that of aptitude, which emphasizes the ability to learn new skills as opposed to simply the desire to do so.

Applicability refers to an individual’s ability to put his or her skills and experience to effective use. Employees may have years of experience with certain skill sets, but, if lack of motivation or poor communication skills prevent them from effectively applying the knowledge, it is of little value to an organization.

Experience is normally thought of as the total number of years a person has worked with a particular technology. An adage refers to distinguishing between someone who has 10 years of actual experience in an area of expertise versus someone who has one year of experience 10 times over. Depth, variety, and currency are three components of experience that should be factored into any assessment of a person’s skill level.

Table 3-4 summarizes the four key characteristics used to assess an individual’s skill potential in transitioning from one infrastructure to another. Additional descriptions are shown for each characteristic to assist in clarifying differences between them.

We can take a more analytical approach to this assessment by applying numerical weights to each of the four key characteristics. These weights may be assigned in terms of their relative importance to the organization in which they are being used. Any magnitude of number can be used, and in general the greater the importance of the attribute the higher the weight. Naturally these weights will vary from company to company. The attribute of an individual is then assessed and given a numerical rating. For example, the rating could be on a 1-to-5 basis with 5 being the best. The weight and rating are then multiplied to compute a score for each attribute. The four computations are then summed for an overall score. This approach is certainly not foolproof. Other factors such as personality, chemistry, and communication skills may override mere numerical scores. But the technique can be useful to narrow down a field of candidates or as additional assessment data. Table 3-5 shows an example of how this method could be used. With a rating range from 1 to 5, the range of overall scores could vary between 10 and 50.

Once a perspective candidate has been identified, a relatively formal interview process should follow. Both the employer and the potential employee should ask sufficient questions to make sure a good fit is likely. For key positions it may be appropriate to have several key staff members interview the candidate to ensure that a variety of viewpoints are covered and to arrive at a consensus about the candidate.

Telephone interviews sometimes are necessary to accommodate conflicting schedules, especially if multiple people will be involved in the interview process. Whenever possible, however, face-to-face interviews should be conducted to evaluate personality, body language, and other nonverbal cues not apparent over a telephone. Most companies have unique job benefits as well as drawbacks, and all of these should be discussed thoroughly and openly during the interview process. The fewer surprises in store for both the employer and the new hire once employment begins, the better for everyone involved.

For positions involving leadership and supervisory roles, you should almost always require references. Request a minimum of two and preferably three or four, and then thoroughly follow up on them. When company benefits are explained to prospective candidates, the explanation should be very thorough; it is usually best handled by a person in the company’s human resources department.

Once a candidate has accepted the job offer, the challenge of staffing now shifts to retaining this person (along with all the other highly talented personnel). IT departments and human resources groups have been struggling with this phenomenon for years. As a result, some creative approaches have been used to stem the tide of turnover and attrition.

Some of these new approaches involve creative compensation such as supplying personnel with free cell phone use, remote Internet access from home, laptop computers, or compensating them for business mileage. Recent research suggests that several nonmonetary factors often are just as important as cash salary. These nonmonetary incentives include the amount of on-the-job training to be provided, the currency of technology used, attendance at conferences and seminars, the meaningfulness and significance of the work being performed, promotion opportunities, and the stability of the management staff.

More often than not, skilled technical professionals change jobs because of some key ingredient missing in the relationship they have with an immediate manager. We have all heard about the importance of communication, but it is hard to overstate its significance. Over the years I have come to know several highly skilled IT professionals who left an otherwise excellent job opportunity simply because of poor communication with their managers. Lack of recognition, little career planning, and their managers’ inabilities to convey an organization’s vision, direction, and goals are some other common reasons employees cite when discussing a poor management relationship.

A few years ago I headed up an outsourcing effort at a major film studio. One of the unfortunate circumstances of the project was that a number of good employees would need to be redeployed by the prospective outsourcer. To mitigate the adverse effect of this displacement, we requested that each prospective outsourcing bidder itemize the employee benefits that they would offer to our former employees. The quantity and quality of these benefits would become part of our evaluation criteria in selecting an eventual winner of the contract.

To ensure that we were evaluating the proposed benefits appropriately, I also worked with our human resources department to survey our employees to determine which benefits meant the most to them. We jointly comprised what we all felt was a comprehensive list of typical employee benefits, including those that would likely come into play during a change in companies. We then asked each employee to indicate the level of importance they would give to each benefit. The rating was to be made on a 1 to 5 scale; 1 indicated the least important benefit and 5 indicated the most important benefit

The results of the employee benefit survey were surprising, even to some of the more seasoned human resources representatives. The responses (see Table 3-6) provide some interesting insight into employee priorities. Each benefit is ranked from most important to least important according to its average score. As shown in the table, salary was not the highest priority benefit, although it was close to the top. Medical care was first.

Even more surprising was the list of additional benefits that we asked employees to propose. We felt we had compiled a fairly thorough list of traditional benefits and were not expecting to receive more than two or three newly proposed benefits. As shown in Table 3-7, we underestimated the creative talents of our staff as they proposed an additional 13 benefits. Each benefit is ranked from most important to least important according to the total number of respondents who selected it.

Another alternative available to infrastructure managers needing to fill positions is the use of consultants and contractors. Their use in IT environments in general, and in IT infrastructures in particular, is increasing at a rapid rate for a variety of reasons. Outsourcing, company downsizing, acquisitions and mergers, and global competition are leading to significant reductions in full-time IT staff.

This trend toward reduced IT staffing—especially in larger, more established shops—is also feeding the supply of ready consultants. Many of the previously displaced IT personnel elect to become independent consultants. Frequently many of these former workers enter into service contracts with their previous employers. Others market their skills to companies with IT environments similar to their previous company to ensure a good fit between the skills they can offer and the technical requirements needing to be met.

The explosive growth of the Web and the flood of Internet start-up companies have also contributed to unprecedented demand for IT consulting services. Integrating dissimilar architectures—database software, desktop operating systems, and networking technologies, for example—often requires specialized skills. In many cases managers find it easier to contract with a consultant for these specialized skills than to attempt to grow them from within. A heightened awareness of the benefits of new, replaced, or migrated systems is pushing implementation schedules forward. Accelerated schedules are well suited for the immediate availability and short-term commitments offered by consultants and contractors. The shortened project life cycles of open system applications, the rapid deployment of Web-enabled systems, and the intensifying of global competition are some of the forces at work today that fuel this demand for accelerated implementations.

Consultants come in a variety of types, and they contrast slightly with the notion of a contractor. Understanding the differences between the two can help ensure a better fit between the skills being offered and the business requirements needing to be met. The term consultant normally refers to someone hired to do an analytical task, such as a capacity study, a security audit, or a re-engineering assignment. This contrasts with the term contractor, which generally refers to someone hired to perform a more specific task, such as coding an interface or developing a software enhancement.

Consultants are commonly supplied from one of the major accounting firms or from major computer hardware or software suppliers. Contractors, on the other hand, are more likely to come from software development companies or they are in business for themselves. Consultants tend to be oriented toward issues of strategy, service process, and management. Contractors tend to be oriented towards issues of coding, documentation, technology, and deliverables. These orientations then determine the specific type of consultant or contractor to be hired.

Knowing the specific type of person to be hired helps in one other important area—that of teaming with onboard employees. For example, a consultant hired to develop IT customer service levels needs to show empathy toward the customers that he or she is dealing with. Similarly, a contractor hired to work with an existing team of onboard developers must be able to fit in with the members of the group.

This chapter presented effective ways to staff your infrastructure organization, presenting techniques to assess a variety of groups of onboard personnel who may be qualified to work in systems management. For those instances where outside hiring is required, we discussed effective ways to attract candidates from other organizations, including the use of recruiters. We then looked at the selection process itself, along with several suggestions for how to retain key personnel. Finally, the chapter concluded with a treatment of the benefits and drawbacks of using consultants and contractors.