6 ms·
There aren't going to be a study on there because the most relevant feature is evolutionary adaptation. Going deep on a single topic works great when that topi
by Naritai 10y ago
There aren't going to be a study on there because the most relevant feature is evolutionary adaptation. Going deep on a single topic works great when that topic is in vogue, but leaves you open to disastrous results if that topic loses its sheen (or becomes over-subscribed with competition). Think, for example, of those poor engineers who invested their lives in BlackBerry systems. Conversely, seeking to build a wide range of skills necessarily reduces your ability to go deep on any one topic, but gives you the ability to more quickly react to shifts in the industry.
Thus, anecdotally at least, my company (and I) advise our staff to become 'T-shaped' - have one area of deep competence, but familiarize yourself with other areas at least to the extent that you can have an intelligent conversation on the topic. This leaves you desirable for your knowledge but not forever tied to that one area.
I know you wanted a study, and the above is anecdotal, but it's based my experience recruiting and many discussions with candidates.
- akiselev 10y agoI'm not sure BlackBerry developers are a good example. Some of the best engineers I know working in mobile got there because they worked for years on BlackBerry learning how professionals used their phones, how to optimize software for battery life, how to adapt company workflow to mobile, etc. Making the switch to the modern incarnation of the smartphone with touchscreens wasn't difficult. It seems that outside a few safe areas (compilers, operating systems, etc) it's really hit or miss on whether your skills are adaptable to the evolving tech landscape.
- fowkswe 10y agoLot's of Flash developers got caught with their pants down. If you were good, you moved into iOS (or jumped on the ever morphing javascript train), but lots of them were not T shaped and struggled to transition their skillset.
- Naritai 10y agoFair enough. I'm sure you can think of a technology, though, that made nice coin for a few years until suddenly it didn't.
- dredmorbius 10y agoIf not Blackberry, then: 1. Novell Networks. 2. SAP. 3. Peoplesoft. 4. COBOL. 5. Y2K. 6. Perl. 7. Visual Basic. 8. CORBA. 9. XML. 10. Freeway Engineering (if you were in California in the 1970s). 11. Nuclear Engineering (if you were anywhere on Earth after 28 March 1979). There's an old saying, "Jack of all trades, master of none." Less well-known is the rejoinder: "though ofttimes better than master of one". The point being that finding yourself with a single competency can be narrowing. Multiple points of expertise give you leverage and pivot capability. The balance is in sorting where and how to develop expertise.