January 22, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The In-House Expert
January 23, 2008 at 1:37 am
An interesting article, but it all relies on that first sentence, "We increasingly move towards specialization". That's quite an assumption, and I'm not sure it's correct. Certainly it'll be right for some companies, but in the industry as a whole?
I'd be the first to admit that IT is an ever expanding area, and we're way past the point that one person can know everything, so one must target one's learning. However, being "the DTS expert" or having a group for "SSIS development" are luxuries of large companies only, and bear little resemblance to the plethora of smaller companies that provide many of us with the opportunity to start our careers in the first place. For every person with a remit to specialise in database work (and even that's deliberately leaving it fairly wide), I wonder how many people in SMEs are told "there's a server, this is what we want to achieve"? Or how many people have to dabble in a bit of database work in between sorting out network issues, fixing PCs, installing applications, patching server OSs etc.?
I suspect the move towards specialisation is more an ideal than a reality, although I'll admit that at the moment I don't have anything but anecdotal evidence to support that belief.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
January 23, 2008 at 2:37 am
"More and more of us generalize on the platform and then specialize in one or two areas. There's nothing wrong with that and I'd encourage most of you to follow that path"
Whilst I agree with this, it does raise interesting issues for a company. Say you are an expert in DTS, and write some really neat packages. Once written, should the company keep paying you a salary based on your your DTS expertise, when on a daily basis you are not using those skills?
Sure, having a DTS expert on-hand to fix any problems is great, but surely a luxury?
So I agree, we probably are heading more towards two-minute consultants. I just don't want to be among the permanent staff who *has* to be a generalist, and when a serious problem arises, someone else gets called in to do the interesting work.
January 23, 2008 at 3:45 am
Hi,
The natural world gives us a heads-up to the reality of specialization.
Animals and plants that are highly specialized i.e. optimized to take advantage of a narrow environmental niche, appear to do extremely well when viewed over -geologically - short timescales. They are kings of their little world with little or no competition for resources. What tends to happen over the longer term is that success turns to rapid failure. Global and local environmental conditions inevitably change altering the nature of the niches within them. Some niches can no longer provide enough resources to sustain a viable population. The population dwindles and extinction is then almost certain. The upside is new niches are created or others expanded and then other species will be able to take advantage of those conditions and begin to flourish.
The parallels with the business world and particularly IT are obvious.
The fundamental question is how long we think our niche will survive if we are highly specialized and if it does change are we willing/able to adapt.
My personal observations suggest that a broad knowledge with a few deep pools allows for surprising flexibility in a changing job market. Jack of many trades and master of a one or two seems to be a good option.
🙂
K.
January 23, 2008 at 6:40 am
I don't mind learning new technologies, but I hate to be told which ones I have to learn.
Well situations vary, but as a full time employee in a company I'm willing to stay with (with good benefits etc,) I think it's not a bad strategy to adjust my skill set within reason to accommodate the corporate direction and requirements. Being useful is helpful to the team and helpful to my career; I've even done some basic training in areas defintely not DBA related (I just voluntarily took a basic Landesk class) because it enables me to pitch in when needs arise.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
January 23, 2008 at 6:43 am
I just wanted to comment on the "shoestring staff to maintain operations and then use consultants for any additional or specialized work" question. I work for an automotive supplier where the company focus is on manufacturing. In our company, the focus is to DE-specialize; I can't remember how many times I have heard the comment that a job should be able to be performed by a monkey, and that a monkey should be able to move from one job to another with relatively little or no training. The problem is that the management of the company are all manufacturing people and they tend to think that IT should be just like the assembly line. We have a shoestring staff (a staff of 5 for a company of just under 1000 employees) and we do use consultants for specialized work and I'm here to tell you it SUCKS! The real issue occurs when something that was "set up" or created by a consultant has a problem, we usually need to call that consultant back to fix it. Meanwhile, we have users or line people screaming that their system is down, what are we doing about it? And once the system is back on line, we (IT) are left cleaning up the mess that was created by the system being down. I wouldn't know what to do if we could hire a REAL dBA (or give me the time and training to become one :)). So from my point of view, the shoestring staff idea is not the right answer. I know that all companies are under increasing pressure to reduce manpower and increase profit, but there comes a point of diminishing returns. I just hope most CEO's and upper management are smart enough to recognize it when they see it.
January 23, 2008 at 6:49 am
Good point, Dan
The company that employs me has an IT strategy of actively investing in skills in-house, requiring design/spec/project management to be done by employees, and using third parties (contractors/consultants) for grunt work. The idea is that if anyone really understands any system, it's first and foremost someone employed by the company rather than someone temporary.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
January 23, 2008 at 6:59 am
Specialization has it's benefits, but usually in the short-term. The article unfortunately took the notion of specialization to mean a nearly singular focus on one tool. And to that I say, 'the other poster's are correct!'. Hardly anybody has that luxury, if that's what you want to call it.
There has been a notable exception to the specialization trend over the past 10 years, and that is in the area of BI. To my own benfit, I don't BI as specialization in one tool. I see BI as a toolkit where, on any given day, I might need data modeling, DTS/SSIS, Analysis Services, or some reporting tools. In this area, specialization revolves around content rahter than a single tool, per se...
That said, too much of the BI market has become the purview of short-term consulting gigs and that is a single-person's game. I'm lucky to have a good gig where I am out of town only 3 days/2 nights per week. My company sees reporting and BI as a lifecycle, not a one hit wonder. And should they change their mind, the bag of tricks I have gleaned from my BI specialization will serve me well.
January 23, 2008 at 7:28 am
I agree with Phil...
My focus in the past has been database administration. I've worked for larger companies that had DBA's, application developers, reporting folks, and DA's.
I've since moved to a smaller company that has given me the opportunity to really expand... using the BI tool suite of SS2K5 and continuing with the DBA work. So I have my area of specialization and the ability to expand in other areas still closely related to "database stuff".
What I think is the most frustrating is looking at job postings where the qualifications are all the DBA skills, BI skills, app development, citrix, networking, PM, modeling, networks / server administration... and throw in a couple of certifications!!
Do these positions ever get filled??
January 23, 2008 at 7:56 am
Dan Moyer (1/23/2008)
I just wanted to comment on the "shoestring staff to maintain operations and then use consultants for any additional or specialized work" question.
I agree with Dan's post; that's how many consulting arrangements seem to work out, and it's wrong. As a Consultant that works in the type of situation Dan describes, I find that it is part of my job to not only build what is being asked, but to ensure that the employed staff is in a position to support it. This is done by ensuring that the solution is well documented and identifying persons with the appropriate skillset and involving them in the build. It really isn't as simple as that, but I could write a wealth of information on the topic. In short, if I was the consultant you were having to call back in, I would consider my initial effort a failure. I take much pride in running into former clients and finding that they are not only still using whatever it was I built for them, but they have managed to expand on it.
To Steve's original editorial, the book Good to Great by Jim Collins comes to mind. Get the right people on the bus, regardless of their specializations. Good people will become generalists in a technology and specialize in one or two things as directed by their manager. Great people are the generalists who can adapt to their environments, identitify need, and become experts in a given area on a project by project basis. This can mean Reporting Services one month and configuring Active Directory for Kerberos Authentication the next.
January 23, 2008 at 10:19 am
Actually specialization in one area is not good for the career and not good for the company, what happens when the employee leave or plainly get sick? In my last job, I was the only one knowing how to set up a planning job, even I had pneumonia and my doctor was about to put me in the hospital, my co-worker still called me and asked me if I could do the work. I did the work but no one appreciated my dedication. Later the human resource even said I was stupid to do that. My boss forced me to resign for other reason and he did not even appreciate what I had done for the company.
Anyway most companies do not want employees to specialize in one area but it may happen when there is not enough people and time to cross training.
For the past few months I was looking for a job. In most of the job postings about database development, most companies required the candidate knowing performance tuning, installing SQL Server, creating backup and restore script, plus expert in SQL, T-SQL, trigger, DTS package, data modeling, some sort of reporting tools, .NET is a plus, also knowing business intelligence would be ideal too. BTW it required to have experience in SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005. It is liked the company want to hire a DBA/Database developer/Data architect/Data warehouse expert. I am not kidding, I still have all the job postings. I just get a job and the above is the requirements. I am worried that it is too much to do for one person but I need the job. :unsure::ermm:
At least the company does not throw in sweeping the floor and clean out the garbage!!!!!!:exclamationmark:
I don't mind to learn new technology but there is just not enough time to learn and the technology is moving too fast.
January 24, 2008 at 8:07 am
Specialization may be necessary to some extent. Adaptability is a tremendous asset. Marketability is of the essence.
Just be sure what you are asked to specialize in has value outside the current company you are working for. If you become an expert in how company A runs their financial applications, you may find them at a later date willing to forgo your position. With expertise highly-devoted to one organization's processes, applications or procedures, you may have to retool in a big way to find a new job even at a lower level.
Toni
January 24, 2008 at 8:29 am
Actually, now I've had a chance to reflect on this subject, I'm more than ever convinced that specialisation shouldn't be taken too far.
We all know that IT has proliferated to a huge extent over the years, and almost no company relies on just one system. For that reason, one of the most valuable assets is not expertise in any one system but the knowledge of how to get two or more systems to interact. Interfaces. In other words, having a foot in at least two camps dramatically increases your usefulness. I also believe that most companies recognise this, and it's this that many see as your true value.
I suppose what I'm thinking is that specialisation, unless applied VERY carefully, can be a hugely blinkered attitude.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
January 24, 2008 at 8:34 am
If I've specialized in anything, it's in learning new things.
I've not done IT work for large multinationals, so I have no idea how specialized things are there. My work has been for small companies (200 personnel or less). (I've worked for large companies, but not in any sort of IT capacity.) In the small company environment, I pretty much have to specialize in "whatever it takes to get the job done", and that can change from hour to hour, day to day, week to week, etc.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 1, 2008 at 2:35 am
"And if your specialty becomes strong enough and there's the demand, you might just find yourself working for a new boss: yourself."
I just love that sentence, I really am on that subject now, I'm working for a consulting firm but costing the client 95 euro's and finnally getting like 30 euro's per hour from the consulting firm is getting more and more frustrating for me. I'm scared but getting more and more convinced that I should become freelancer earning the amount of money that is paid for me ..
Wim van den Brink
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply