Preface

BACKGROUND

In the spring of 1998, Congress conducted hearings on the needs of U.S. industry for high-technology workers. A primary impetus for these hearings was the insistence of information technology industry representatives that companies were unable to recruit sufficient domestic workers and needed to hire additional non-U.S. citizens. Several recent studies supported the industry position. Most notably, a 1997 Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) study estimated a shortage of 340,000 workers in the field of information technology.¹ In September of 1997 the Department of Commerce released a report concluding that there was a shortage of information technology workers.² This conclusion was based on projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that the United States would require more than 1 million additional information technology workers between 1994 and 2005, compared to the small number of U.S. bachelor's degrees in computer and information sciences awarded annually (24,553 in 1994).

In response to the perceived shortage of high-technology workers, bills were introduced in both the House and Senate (H.R. 3736, S. 1723) to increase the number of H-1B visas from the FY1998 level of 65,000 per year. After considerable debate, the resulting legislation (Public Law 105-277) increased the limit on H-1B visas temporarily (to 115,000 in FY1999 and FY2000, 107,500 in FY2001, and reverting to 65,000 in FY2002).

Meanwhile, some experts asserted that the methodology of the ITAA survey was flawed and exaggerated the need for information technology workers. An analysis done by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in March 1998 found methodological weaknesses in the Department of Commerce report, emphasizing that the relevant supply of talent is not limited to computer science graduates.³ The GAO found that only 29 percent of information technology workers have degrees in computer science and that the majority of jobs in information technology are held by persons with degrees in math, science, social science, and business. More than 800,000 people graduate with math and science degrees (B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.) per year.

When Congress passed Public Law 105-277, it included a section (Section 417) that called for the National Science Foundation (NSF) to enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences to report on older workers in the information technology field. Section 418 of that law called on the NSF to report on high-technology labor market needs. Both studies were to be delivered to Congress by October 1, 2000.

Because of the overlap between these subjects, the National Science Foundation asked the National Academy of Sciences, and specifically, the National Research Council (NRC), to conduct a study of needs for a high-technology workforce over the next 10 years, focusing on information technology (IT) and providing broad though less detailed contrast with biotechnology as the other key dimension of high technology with respect to workforce issues.⁴ In addition, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, concerned about the future availability of technically skilled workers to support the nation's space objectives and industrial base, provided support for this study.

Within the National Research Council, four units collaborated in conducting the project. The Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) led the effort, joined by the Board on Testing and Assessment, the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, and the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel.

The study was structured to provide an integrated response to sections 417 and 418 (a) of PL 105-277 (see Box P.1); the former calls for an assessment of the status of older workers using the best available data, and the latter calls for an assessment of labor market needs for workers with high-technology skills over the next 10 years. The section 418 (a) (3) requirement for diverse inputs comports naturally with the NRC study process, which emphasizes a balanced study committee plus broad solicitation of inputs. In particular, the NRC sought to develop an integrated analytical perspective that would combine the perspectives of labor economists with those familiar with the issues at "ground level"--people performing or managing information technology work and people involved in the education and training of information technology workers.

By any standard, the story of IT and the economy is one of success. But against this background of success, concerns have emerged that the lack of an adequate, well-trained workforce may have negative effects on the U.S. economy. Furthermore, because the underlying information technologies change so rapidly, there is concern that the labor market does not work as efficiently in this arena as economic theory would predict--i.e., that rising wages will not relieve the tightness, at least not "in time." Finally, there are concerns that the benefits of employment in information technology or high technology are not being shared equitably.

AUDIENCE AND TIMING

The Committee on Workforce Needs in Information Technology (Appendix C) is well aware that during the time that it was collecting information and deliberating, the political process moved forward. Indeed, the committee anticipated the legislation that was enacted in October 2000 at about the time its report was first made available. This timing raised questions about when to release the report.

The committee notes that its charge did not focus on the H-1B visa issue; rather, the controversy surrounding this issue provided one element of the context surrounding its work. Although the H-1B visa cap is one of the most hotly contested issues in immigration policy today, it is only one of the issues facing the IT and high-technology (IT/HT) workforce. This report is not--and never has been--a report only or even primarily about H-1B visas.

More importantly, the committee has tried in this report to provide a way of thinking about workforce issues in IT/HT that is largely independent of specific legislation. It seems safe to predict that the debate over the IT/HT workforce and immigration will not be definitively resolved by any one piece of legislation--such is the nature of controversial issues engaged by the political process. The committee thus tried to develop an intellectual framework and policy guidance for meeting the nation's needs for information technology workers over the next decade.

In the months since the report's initial release in October 2000, declines in stock valuation for IT and IT-enabled companies, together with well-publicized bankruptcies and layoffs, have affirmed the wisdom of the committee's longer-term horizon.

METHODOLOGY AND CAVEATS

A number of prior studies and analyses of workforce issues in IT constituted the committee's point of departure for its own work. In addition, the committee also heard from many stakeholders across a wide range of perspectives, commissioned a number of papers, sought and received white papers and other input electronically, and conducted several site visits to IT-sector firms. The report also draws insights from committee members most closely associated with IT.

One of the most troublesome aspects of the debate over workforce issues is the paucity of good data. Reliable, representative, timely "hard data" are by far the most preferred as the basis for reaching conclusions. But in practice, the available data are inadequate as a basis for drawing conclusions that are unambiguous.⁵

The committee did not limit itself to considering only those issues for which good-quality and timely data sets were available; to do so would have led to analytical paralysis. Rather, the committee used the best available data, and it relied on testimony and informed speculation when the data were unavailable or inadequate. Its findings, conclusions, and recommendations are based on a mix of data and committee judgment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people contributed to this complex study and comprehensive report. The committee took testimony from many individuals at its plenary sessions, including both scheduled briefers and IT workers who were promised anonymity. The committee is indebted to these people for sharing with it their ideas, concerns, time, and facilities. It also appreciates having received numerous formal and informal analyses and reports from a wide range of organizations and individuals with varying perspectives on the IT workforce. Subcommittees also held regional information-gathering sessions, and site visits were conducted in New York City; Austin, Texas; Bellevue, Washington; and Fairfax, Virginia. (Appendix D indicates the dates and locations of the plenary and regional meetings and lists the individuals who participated.)

For helping to organize the Austin events, the committee is indebted to Robert Glover, research scientist in the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources at the University of Texas at Austin; Mary Jo Sanna, project director of Computer Science 2000 at the Capital Area Tech-Prep Consortium; Craig Eissler, from the Capital Area Training Foundation; and David Brant, associate vice president for research at the University of Texas at Austin. The committee also acknowledges management and staff at Trilogy Software, BMC Software, and Academic Software for agreeing to participate in focus group sessions with the Austin subcommittee and for speaking with the subcommittee on the challenges and opportunities of working in the high-tech industry.

In Seattle, the committee was assisted by Edward Lazowska, professor and chair of the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington and a member of CSTB. (Kathleen) Kay Williams, manager of computing skills management information services for the Boeing Company, and Gary Jackson, co-director of the International Association of Machinists/Boeing Company Joint Quality Through Training Program, facilitated focus group sessions with high-technology managers and workers at their respective companies.

In Fairfax, the committee met at George Mason University and appreciates the assistance of J. Thomas Hennessy, Jr., chief of staff to the president, and Darcy Cors, assistant to the president. Supporting the committee's site visits and focus group meetings were Sue Austin and Kerri Morehart of SRA International Inc., Mike Mendler of SAIC, Sudhaker Shenoy of IMC, (Lorraine) Pat Sherod of Litton PRC, and Rosanne Cuttitta of Celera Genomics.

A number of individuals responded to the committee's call for white papers, including Denise Gurer (3Com Inc.), Joyce Malyn-Smith (Education Development Center Inc.), Eric Roberts (Stanford University), David Lee (Suffolk University), and B. Lindsay Lowell and Susan Martin (Georgetown University). In addition, the committee commissioned a number of papers on its own initiative and received papers from Hal Salzman, Hal Salzman and Radha Roy Biswas (University of Massachusetts-Lowell), Charles Starliper, Kevin Murphy and Zinta Byrne (Colorado State University), and Robert Lerman (American University).

The National Science Foundation provided the committee with important data on IT workers and other scientific and engineering personnel. While the committee appreciates NSF assistance in this matter, the use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report. In addition, the committee gratefully acknowledges Mark Regets, senior analyst for NSF, for the administrative and data-related assistance he provided on numerous occasions.

The committee also appreciates the hundreds of suggestions and constructive criticisms provided by the reviewers of an early draft of this report. That input helped the committee to sharpen its message and strengthen its presentation.

Within the NRC, the lead unit on the project was the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. However, the committee received a high level of support from members and staff of the three other NRC units involved: the Board on Testing and Assessment, the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, and the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel.

NRC staff assisted and, at critical times, guided the committee in many ways. They provided essential insight into the NRC process and resources. They organized the regional site visits, arranged for briefings, and handled logistical matters for the committee with the utmost skill and patience. They provided research support to the committee, including a number of data analyses that were critical to the analytical content of the report. They facilitated numerous contacts with outside sources of expertise and content.

The issues addressed by the committee were wide-ranging. Any one issue or discussion could involve technical, political, social, ethical, educational, and human resource matters, among others. Similarly, the perspectives and biases of the committee were equally diverse, as were those of the intended audience. Herb Lin, senior scientist for CSTB and the study director for this project, turned discussions, individual ideas, and points of agreement and of initial disagreement into this important report. He crafted meeting agendas in such a way that the committee received the proper amount of diverse external input and had sufficient time to develop its conclusions and recommendations. This study could not have been carried out nor this report written without Herb. The committee is deeply indebted to him.

Finally, the assistance of Bill Spencer (Sematech), William Eddy (Carnegie Mellon University), Stephen J. Lukasik (SAIC), and John Kreick in the launch of this project is appreciated.

Notes

¹ Information Technology Association of America. 1998. Help Wanted: 1998: A Call for Collaborative Action for the New Millennium. Arlington, Va.: ITAA.

² Department of Commerce. 1997. America's New Deficit: The Shortage of Information Technology Workers. Washington, D.C., September.

³ U.S. General Accounting Office, Health, Education, and Human Services Division. 1998. Information Technology: Assessment of the Department of Commerce's Report on Workforce Demand and Supply, GAO/HEHS 98 106R. Washington, D.C., March 20.

⁴ The contract between the National Science Foundation and the NRC called for the project to "profile the demographic changes in the U.S. workforce of the future and identify measures to insure access by the IT industry to the full pool of potential talent. [The project] also will consider the extent of future reliance on foreign talent resident in the U.S. and abroad and policies affecting access to that talent via foreign investment and immigration, among others . . . . Comparisons will be attempted to the biotechnology workforce, addressing similar dimensions but with less detail. One important area of contrast between IT and biotechnology will be the educational preparation of the immigrant workforce (post-doctoral emphasis in biotechnology, doctorate and below in IT)."

⁵ For example, data are often insufficiently timely. Data that are 2 years old--recent by most federal standards--are unlikely to reflect accurately today's state of affairs in the rapidly changing IT sector. Definitions of data categories (e.g., the definitions for items such as "computer scientist" or "systems analyst"), which are necessarily relatively stable over time, do not necessarily reflect the IT job titles of today because new types of jobs emerge quickly in the IT sector. In particular, data categories are generally too coarse and do not reflect important distinctions between IT jobs.