Cloud Job Openings Heavy on Engineers, Network Admins

Cloud computing jobs remain open as companies search with little success for the professionals they need.

Hiring demand for cloud skills is up 92 percent from February 2011 and an amazing 400 percent compared to two years ago, according to a Wanted Analytics study of job listings.

More than 3,400 of the 5,000 cloud-related job listings Wanted Analytics studied were for tech talent such as Software Engineers, Systems Engineers and Network Administrators.

Silicon Valley leads in cloud computing jobs, followed by Seattle, Washington. D.C., San Francisco and New York. The city with the highest year-over-year growth (150 percent) goes to San Francisco. But with job listings in S.F. active for an average of eight weeks, it’s clear that employers aren’t finding the people they need quickly.

According to Wanted Analytics, the most in-demand cloud-related skills are:

  • Oracle Java
  • Linux
  • Structured Query Language (SQL)
  • UNIX
  • Software as a Service (SaaS)
  • Python Extensible Programming Language
  • Practical Extraction and Reporting Language (Perl)
  • Extensible Markup Language (XML)
  • Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
  • JavaScript (JS)

No Responses to “Cloud Job Openings Heavy on Engineers, Network Admins”

  1. Fred Bosick

    The Cloud is just a fad, a buzzword. Apart from that, how can there be a ready supply of qualified applicants for these jobs if the demand grows 400% over two years? It’s like asking for qualified taxi drivers after cars had just been invented.

    The answer is the same as for many questions asked here. If you can’t find the applicants you want, train them!

    • I think it’s hard to make the argument that the cloud’s a fad. It’s like saying servers were a fad back in the day.

      As for training — at the end of the day, like it or not — the people who’ve gone and gotten the training on their own, even the most basic training, are the ones who’ll have the advantage. Most companies just aren’t going to train someone unless they regard them as pretty much perfect in every other regard.

      • James Green

        Then companies need to stop crying about the so call lack of talent if they are not will to train available people who have IT experience closely related to cloud technology. Once again another crap article from dice, with no details. Mark were did these ambiguous people who have these cloud jobs get their training from?

    • Jeremy DeVoll

      IT professionals need to take Cloud seriously. Those that don’t will end up without jobs. I understand that it can be a little frustrating. For a great many of IT professionals we are in the middle of our careers. I for example have been in IT for 15 years, and it’s difficult to accept that I already need to change everything about how I think, and that I need to in some senses abandon the skill sets that have gotten me to where I am today. It’s difficult to figure out exactly how I need to shift my skills to ensure the longevity of my career. Cloud will certainly be the death of all infrastructure related work that occurs in the data-center (network, storage, server, OS, backup etc.), but it will be the birth of entire classes of new jobs. We all have a choice, bury our head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening or embrace the very necessary and impending changes. You can look at Cloud initiatives as being something that threatens your job, or you can look at them as a re-definition of what your job will be. It is necessary that we each position ourselves for those new jobs now.

      There is a set of people that live, eat and breathe IT and they aren’t standing around waiting…they started running when they entered the industry and haven’t stopped since. They have the most current skills and experiences and are interviewing for the same jobs as you. They aren’t waiting for their employers to help them get a leg up. Everything in our lives is a choice, and every choice has consequences (good or bad). What choice will you make?

      • The cloud will be the death of nothing. Some companies will embrace “the cloud” because it’s cool, hip, and trendy. Others will recoil at the thought of placing their data under the control of a third party and will perhaps choose to develop their own cloud(s). Still others will continue to scatter “productivity apps” across a plethora of PCs and depend on IT to keep everything ship-shape.

      • James Green

        Jeremy are you for real, the employees companies do value send them for training for systems they will be implementing. Of course some employees will seek out training on there own if they see there companies implementing new/old technologies such as the cloud ( which seems like rented out mainframe tech to me). Now for people who are unemployed I guest they are a@s out because they cannot afford to gamble on training that does not lead to employment.

  2. The “cloud” is hardly a new idea: in many ways it’s renamed, re-packaged time sharing. Nor are the skills the employers are seeking new technologies. I once again find it difficult to believe they cannot find staff for these positions. Or could it be that (too) many IT folk are constantly chasing the newest latest and greatest fad and Perl, which is 20 or so years old, is viewed as passe?

    • Jeremy DeVoll

      There are both old and new ideas within “cloud”. There are definitely elements of time sharing, but it isn’t time sharing. There are definitely similarities and elements in common with ASP, but it’s not an ASP. There are elements of outsourcing but it’s not just outsourcing. There are elements of basic principles of scale and volume, but it’s not these either. I find it helpful to think of “cloud” in terms of cooking. Spaghetti and ravioli can have a nearly identical set of ingredients, but spaghetti is not ravioli nor is ravioli spaghetti. By changing the volumes of ingredients and how they are assembled you do get something new.

  3. jsilveronnelly

    “The Cloud” — the term itself — may be a fad/buzzword. The technology meaning behind it is not. “The Cloud” is just the new term for “The Web” or “Internet 2.0” or whatever. But “The Cloud” is, in its most general form, the Internet itself. Is that a fad?

    • Jeremy DeVoll

      “The Cloud” is not a term that refers to the Internet. Although the Internet can be a key element of what it takes for “the Cloud”. “The Cloud” refers to a set of capabilities which are offered through adding a high degree of automation, to a technology infrastructure stack, and by placing software which has been written using SOA based architecture principles on top of that stack. So Cloud is a way of putting together things that aren’t new (infrastructure stack), with something that has been around awhile but which isn’t broadly used yet (SOA based architectures), with something that IS new (automation of the technology stack).

      • jsilveronnelly

        Well, actually, it is. The word “Cloud” comes from those network diagrams where a LAN is connected to this “cloud” thing, representing the Internet.

        But I get your point. On the other hand, “The Cloud” strikes me as purely a marketing term for stuff that *has* been done before and *has* been around for a while. I mean, you even said that yourself.

        I’m not really trying to argue, as your description of what “The Cloud” means when it is used in articles like this one is apt. But I do think that 5 years from now, while a lot of stuff will still be “in The Cloud”, the marketing term for it will have changed. I mean, does anyone say “Web 2.0” anymore? (just by way of example) Whatever happened to “Web 3.0” — wasn’t that supposed to be the semantic web?

        I’m just expressing cynicism against relatively meaningless marketing mumbo jumbo. But not against the underlying technologies themselves.

  4. Proud Paulbot

    —–There is a set of people that live, eat and breathe IT and they aren’t standing around waiting…they started running when they entered the industry and haven’t stopped since. They have the most current skills and experiences and are interviewing for the same jobs as you—–

    While I’m sure a few geniuses exist–people who can just sit at home and, by simply going through some tutorials–gain complete fluency in ALL of the programming languages listed in the article–obviously, there aren’t hordes of them out there. Otherwise, why would these companies be complaining of a “shortage”?

    ——They aren’t waiting for their employers to help them get a leg up. Everything in our lives is a choice, and every choice has consequences (good or bad). What choice will you make?——

    I could ask the same thing of these companies. Being as they’re continually crying and whining about “shortages,” what do THEY intend to do to address the problem? My chosen moniker should tell you that I do not feel that running to the gov’t and demanding that they “do something”–read: force the taxpayers to pay to train employees for private enterprise–is how the problem should be addressed.

    Certainly individuals should take responsibility for their own careers and lives (no self-respecting Paulbot would claim otherwise), but being as the employers are the ones who have the need, they should be taking responsibility as well. What is private enterprise doing to recruit and train the workers THEY need?

    ——Now for people who are unemployed I guest they are a@s out because they cannot afford to gamble on training that does not lead to employment.—–

    That is exactly why I made the choice to forget about IT and just go back to marketing. I don’t have time to learn all of the programming languages listed in this article…while NOT working, and thus having no $$ to pay for my basic needs. If I could have gotten, say, a $10.00/hour job that offered training in all of those languages and the promise of promotion if I worked hard and applied myself, I would have taken it. But those jobs don’t exist. There are no entry-level positions for hard workers.

    Instead, I took a contract gig at a PR firm where I can apply my previous marketing and social media experience. I also entered an MBA program, with an eye on starting my own, non-IT-related business. This was the choice I made. It was either this choice…or continue to chase rainbows and ultimately go over a cliff when I ran out of money. (Welfare is not an option to me — I’ve never collected welfare in my life, and I wasn’t about to start now.)

    IT employers think that employees should just train themselves — or, worse yet, that the government has a responsibility to do it, and that they have a right to demand such. (Talk about an “entitlement mentality.”) They can keep saying that this is the way it should be, but it has never worked that way, in any field. And, being as employers continue to complain of these “shortages,” it’s not working in IT, either.

    Are these employers going to keep whining and complaining and demanding that the gov’t “do something,” or are they going to do something to proactively solve the problem?

  5. I’ve read some info on clouds, it seems folks are trying to provide mainframe-like services over the Internet using cheaper machinery and Linux (free)…
    maybe not quite right, but it sounds close to the “cloud” answer.

  6. jsilveronnelly

    “Cloud” doesn’t *specifically* mean “mainframe like services” — but it could. The problem I have with the term is that it means whatever Internet-enabled service any given company wants it to mean.

    My company uses Dell’s “Cloud services” — to Dell, that just means a big pile of blade computers and some sort of storage systems (Equllaogics mostly) hosting VMWare ESX, and providing that to consumers as virtual machines.

    But take Apple’s “cloud service”. They sell that to consumers as this amorphous thing that lets you push/pull your data to all of your devices. (e.g. iTunes songs)

    Then there’s Google, Amazon, and other similar “cloud services”, which offer something closet to what I described with Dell, but not quite the same thing.

    Then, again, there are pure SaaS companies or services like Quickbooks Online and the like. Web-based services that are just the app itself. Yet these are also billed as “Cloud”.

    Thing is, I agree with the label “Cloud” for all of these things, but I don’t like the ambiguity associated with it. It strikes me as pure marketing mumbo jumbo, and not a technical description. (Mind you, I don’t really have an issue with marketing mumbo jumbo, I just don’t like seeing it creep into technical conversations. “Cloud” has crept into every technical conversation, ambiguous though it is)