Complex technology stacks and inadequate training time are creating a greater drag on IT delivery than the shortage of qualified candidates.
According to a RapidScale and UserEvidence survey, 62% of IT professionals and business executives blamed increasing environmental complexity for their organizations’ skills gaps, and 56% cited limited training time —41% reported difficulty hiring qualified talent.
The 259 U.S. respondents from organizations with an average of 2,448 employees said they estimated talent and skills constraints delay 32% of IT projects on average, while 22% said the problem affects more than half of their projects.
The findings complicate the familiar assumption that project delays can be solved primarily through recruitment.
Specialized talent remains scarce, particularly in AI, cloud architecture and financial operations, but additional headcount cannot remove redundant tools, repair brittle integrations or create time for employees to master rapidly changing systems.
When Complexity Resembles a Skills Shortage
A capable workforce can fall behind when the tools surrounding it change faster than employees can adapt. Leaders therefore need to compare existing capabilities with emerging business requirements before classifying every delivery problem as a talent shortage.
“Leaders need to distinguish between a true scarcity of a needed skill and a gap created by how quickly the technology itself is changing,” says Marci Paino, chief learning officer at Cisco. “A workforce may have deep expertise, but as tools and systems evolve, the skills required to use them effectively can shift just as quickly.”
She recommends combining an internal skills inventory with labor-market and technology data. That analysis can reveal whether an organization needs a scarce specialist, can develop the required capability internally or should reconsider how the work itself is organized.
Operational behavior supplies another diagnostic signal. Teams overwhelmed by their environments spend their days repairing integrations, responding to recurring incidents and finding ways around tools that do not work together.
“When IT teams are navigating tool sprawl and outdated systems, they frequently lack full visibility into their environment,” Paino says. “They spend more time working around tools or addressing fire drills, taking IT away from its critical role in setting the technology strategy for the organization.”
Kevin Spektor, co-founder and CTO of Coddy.Tech, says he recommends examining the performance of experienced employees before opening another requisition. Their difficulties can expose problems that would hinder a new hire carrying the ideal credentials.
“Take your more tenured employees and understand what they’re doing,” Spektor says. “If they’re still on the struggle bus to meet deadlines or complete projects, maybe it’s because they’re jumping around between a bunch of different tools, forced to deal with old systems and unnecessary handoffs.”
Reliance on undocumented workarounds is another warning. When only one employee knows how to move data between systems or keep an unreliable process running, the organization has developed an operational dependency rather than a durable capability.
“In my experience, most teams have a handful of employees with their own unique workarounds that aren’t standardized,” he says. “If they’re out sick or on vacation, it’s a coin flip on whether things are going to run smoothly.”
Simplify Without Disrupting Critical Operations
Technology rationalization should begin with evidence about actual use. Organizations must identify which systems support critical workflows, where functions overlap and which products remain in the environment through habit rather than continued business value.
“First, look at what your team actually uses on a regular basis,” Spektor says. “Is it an essential piece of the puzzle or just something off to the side collecting dust?”
Sweeping consolidation can create its own disruption because a neglected application may still feed data into an important process. Spektor advises investigating dependencies and removing or replacing one tool at a time.
“Next, hone in on one thing at a time,” he adds. “It could be a redundant tool or the team’s most hated system.”
That measured approach gives IT teams an opportunity to observe the effect of each change before continuing. It also allows leaders to separate frustration with a particular product from deeper architectural problems involving data, processes or system ownership.
Older systems demand particular attention because their costs extend beyond employee productivity. They can also impede modernization and enlarge the organization’s exposure to security threats.
“Legacy systems are both a security vulnerability and a hindrance to AI adoption,” Paino says.
Give Employees Time to Learn
Training cannot close a skills gap when employees are expected to complete it after handling a full workload.
“We’ve learned creating a culture of continuous learning isn’t only about what learning you offer,” Paino says. “It’s also about the conditions you set and the signals you send about whether people truly have permission to make time for it.”
Spektor argues employers must reduce competing demands when they require employees to acquire new capabilities. Training schedules should also account for periods when employees are handling stressful projects or acute operational problems.
“Change by actually giving your staff the time,” Spektor says. “It’s unrealistic to expect your team to learn when you don’t adjust their workload or bandwidth.”
Match the Talent Strategy to the Need
Organizations ultimately need a combination of internal development, targeted recruitment and outside expertise. The appropriate choice depends on the capabilities already available, the urgency of the work and how long the skill will remain important.
“The right balance depends on the skills an organization already has, the capabilities the business needs and how quickly those needs are changing,” Paino says.
Duration provides a useful test: A recurring, strategically important capability can justify developing interested employees, while an urgent or temporary requirement may favor targeted hiring or external support.
“I’d start with a really basic question: How long are you actually going to need this skill?” Spektor says. “If it’s a long-term need, develop internally, assuming your current staff are interested and capable of growing into it.”
Leaders should still examine the environment awaiting any new employee. A scarce specialist will deliver limited value if that person encounters the same fragmented systems and manual processes already slowing the rest of the team.
“Your tech is supposed to support your business, not hold it hostage,” Spektor says.
