4 ms·

Any reasonably large organisation probably needs both types of person. There’ll be the deep problems that require a true specialist to deal with (Netflix blogs

Any reasonably large organisation probably needs both types of person. There’ll be the deep problems that require a true specialist to deal with (Netflix blogs about optimising network transfer spring to mind here), and people with broad experience who can bring that to bear on new problems, put together prototypes, and understand which specialisms to involve as it develops. There’s huge value in understanding the entire stack in the early stages of development so you’re not having to rope in five different departments just to get something live, but you also need to know when you’re out of your depth and it’s time to call in the people who do nothing but deal with a small subset every day.

kkfx 4y ago
That's sure, but I mean the "general adage", most current narrative is "specialized is good, cool, the way to go, nobody want to be generic, ..." while actually all rulers, broad leaders etc need to be generic. To seems like keep crying "do not be rich! It's bad!" and now I see something I call a small reversing trends where more and more sources start stating "we need more generic/wildcard/T-shaped/$choose-a-label-not-to-say-generic-directly". I call it "a bit late, but still good".