By silicon.com, 1 February 2007 12:50
Microsoft this week has announced its latest effort to facilitate e-skills training - this time targeting workers in Scotland and disadvantaged youngsters.
The news came on the eve of the company's Government Leaders Forum in Edinburgh, which included a parade of politicians speaking about how 'something must be done' to combat the digital divide, prepare for an ageing population and generally safeguard the workforce against the growing influences of globalisation.
Education and training - or what Gordon Brown liked to called "lifelong learning" in his keynote speech - are a big part of the strategy to keep the UK competitive with the rest of the world.
So Microsoft's e-skills training push fits right into this theme - no coincidence, surely, as it's their event.
This sort of vendor-led training - which usually includes donating software and curriculum to those being trained - is nothing new and Microsoft is certainly not alone in its efforts. But is it such a good idea?
Presumably we want a workforce and an IT workforce with a range of skills. Our annual skills survey shows shortages in both Windows and Linux - with Linux being in shorter supply.
And yet you can bet vendor-led training features how to use the company's products and technologies - and perhaps those of their partners. So more with the Windows, less with the Linux.
Microsoft made a big deal about the company's desire not only to pursue profits but also to encourage social and economic growth, with one executive saying: "We think private businesses have an important role to play in public issues."
But surely vendors can't be blind to their self-interest in training workers in their products. What better way could there be to create a new generation of paying customers?
And surely training led by a single vendor is not the way to create broadly skilled workers. We'd feel more comfortable with Microsoft's pronouncements if it was willing to partner with, say, a Red Hat or an IBM for an e-skills push.
One can't overlook the fact that the Microsoft-sponsored Edinburgh conference at which these topics were discussed was held at the Scottish parliament building.
Private companies have long influenced government, though typically through behind-closed-doors lobbying. This latest arrangement feels a little too cosy.
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. Brian Murray
This may not be a new issue, but it is certainly one which has not had the visibility it deserves.
There is no doubt a difficult balance to be made between ensuring we are at the forefront of the leading technology platforms and ensuring we are not, quite bluntly, indoctrinating our children and students towards a particular vendor.
Similar tactics have been employed for some time, such as the key vendors offering inflated discounts to the academic sector to make sure future graduates have exposure, and possibly favouritism, towards there product sets. The "closed-door lobbying" by Microsoft in the UK public sector has seemed a little too tight though, from the leading politicians (in this case) to the IT management within the respective organisations. The subtle emergence of a default platform of choice, along with an apparent closed mindedness to other approaches is all too easily developed.
When it comes to our education system this is more troubling. We should be instilling the underlying logic, technologies, models and practices (including the awareness of where competing solutions, including UNIX & Windows, sit and how we should compare them) - not the expertise around vendor-specific toolsets.
It should also not be forgotten that it is often the business and soft skillsets which need to be integrated with this technical understanding (and, more so, visa-versa!) if we are to address to address our future skill gaps (http://management.silicon.com/careers/0,39024671,39161147,00.htm?r=1) … it seems that this applies to IT more than most, but definitely not exclusively!
2. anonymous
Let's not belittle self-interest. A lot of good has become of it - perhaps even this publication was founded because of self-interest.
It'd be great to see IBM step up to the plate, but they're not focused on it. MSoft is. They work with the European Commission, Cisco and CompTIA to run the e-Skills Consortium in Europe, which urges more public-private partnershgips for e-Skills development. This stuff is vendor-neutral.
Y'all have to do a better job on your homework.
And, of course, become a little more sefl-interested.
3. Richard
Our dependence on Microsoft is very strange:
I've been exploring Linux, using various LiveCDs (CDs which boot my PC straight into Linux without affecting my hard drives). There are many different flavours to suit all tastes available for free download via sites like distrowatch.com
Most of these LiveCDs boot my very ordinary PCs to provide a modern web browser (Firefox, Opera, Konquerer etc.); a modern office suite (Open Office, etc.); digital photo editing (GIMP, F-Spot etc.); music and video players; and much, much more. Often, the software runs in RAM so is very, very fast.
Yes, there are some rough edges, some minor problems, and issued around proprietary drivers & multi-media plug-ins. However, even these LiveCDs provide more software than many people ever use: If fully installed, all missing drivers are readily available.
At the same time, people are being told that they *must* update their PC hardware just to run Microsoft Vista, and then replace much of their software with Vista compatible versions.
Other European countries have now realised that *transferable* IT skills allow people to use whatever software is available, and to develop their skills throughout their lives.
Why is the UK so wedded to teaching only Microsoft specific skills – ones which are often specific to a particular version of a particular product?
Time for a change in government policy?
4. Brian Murray
It is certainly interesting to consider just who's 'self-interests' are being served here.
Having spent several years working in public-private partnerships, I appreciate what you say re-the e-Skills Consortium. However, I fail to see how an organisation with only two vendors (arguably only one) driving it can claim to be vendor-neutral.
Admittedly if it is IBM/HP/Sun/RedHat/etc. who are not stepping up, then it simply raises as many questions over the validity of the "Consortium" as there are around the value of the so-called ECDL!
I would say you are highlighting a much more significant point regarding the way in which Europe serves it's own self-interests in IT. Will we ever see Europe step up to the plate and get it's own IT industry off the ground? We have a lot to learn from the US approach here!