Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
identifi ed as the central dilemma in computer management.
80
In 1966,
the labor situation had gotten so bad that
Business Week
declared it a
“software crisis.”
81
An informal survey in 1967 of management informa-
tion systems (MIS) managers identifi ed as the primary hurdle “handicap-
ping the progress of MIS” to be “the shortage of good, experienced
people.”
82
By the late 1960s, the demand for programmers was increas-
ing by more than 50 percent annually, and it was predicted that
“the software man will be in even greater demand in 1970 than he is
today.”
83
Indeed, estimates of the number of programmers that would
be required by 1970 ranged as high as 650,000.
84
It would be diffi cult to overstate the degree to which concern about
the software labor crisis dominated the industry in this period. The
popular and professional literature during this time was obsessed with
the possible effects of the personnel crisis on the future of the industry.
“Competition for programmers has driven salaries up so fast,” warned
a contemporary article in
Fortune
magazine, “that programming has
become probably the country's highest paid technological
occupation. . . . Even so, some companies can't fi nd experienced pro-
grammers at any price.”
85
A study in 1965 by Automatic Data Processing,
Inc., then one of the largest employers of programmers, predicted that
average salaries in the industry would increase 40 to 50 percent over the
next fi ve years.
86
The ongoing “shortage of capable programmers,”
argued
Datamation
in 1967, “had profound implications, not only for
the computer industry as it is now, but for how it can be in the future.”
87
These potentially profound implications included everything from fi nan-
cial collapse to software-related injury or death to the emergence of a
packaged software application industry.
Faced with a growing shortage of skilled programmers, employers
were forced to expand their recruitment efforts and lower their hiring
standards. Although by 1967 IBM alone was training ten thousand pro-
grammers annually (at a cost of $90 to $100 million), it was becoming
increasingly clear that computer manufacturers alone could not produce
trained programmers fast enough.
88
As a result, many companies reluc-
tantly assumed the costs of expensive internal training programs, “not
because they want to do it, but because they have found it to be an
absolute necessary adjunct to the operation of their business.”
89
It is
diffi cult to fi nd accurate data on the size of such programs, as many
organizations refused to disclose details about them to outsiders, “on the
theory that to do so would only invite raiding” from other employers.
90
The job market was so competitive in this period that as many as half
