Specialization question...

[deanwebb]

In the early years of one's career, we seek after a wide range of knowledge to make us more flexible in being able to take advantage of possible employment opportunities. But, as the days turn into years, we may have a chance to become a narrow specialist. I don't have that choice in front of me right now, but it might be something I get to choose about in my near future.

So I'd like to pick the brains of everyone here... what are some possible pros and cons of not just being a specialist in networking (security), but also in a niche within that specialization?

Some that I could see would be promotion to the architect/manager of that solution in-company, and then getting parked there as the last technical role before getting the management lobotomy. Peak technical, in other words. It could also mean, then, that future career advancement would mean possibly going over to work for the vendor of that solution - but if I'm already at Megacorporation International, I may have more job stability and assurance where I'm at than at a vendor that could go bust or drop that product or get bought out by Cisco... maybe less immediate payroll, but better long-run prospects. Or maybe not, if the vendor's a strong player in a currently growing market.

I know it'll also affect the way I view other technologies, always through that filter of my specialization. Then, there's letting go of the other things I used to be the boss of... I hope that I'd be professional enough to let someone else take the wheel and not make comments behind his back. I think that I am, but there's always a temptation to tell tales out of school...

What are your thoughts?

[icecream-guy]

when hiring, companies look for well rounded people.  looking for experience in X, Y & Z.  If one Has X, A & B experience their resume may get looked over and tossed in the round file.

if one applies for a job doing VOIP and has a VOIP specialization, or WIFI with WIFI specialization. that may help get  the job.

in a larger company one may want to specialize, because there is opportunity and need. that would be a good thing, if one plans of not changing jobs anytime soon.

really is a balance between the two, one must be well rounded enough to dive into any technology get their hands dirty and figure out an issue at least a a basic level,  then have more intimate knowledge in some specific technology where advanced theoretical network designs can be architected and deployed.

[Dieselboy]

Perfect world - have a specialisation AND have experience / knowledge / interest in as many other areas as possible.

Sorry, perfect world: have as many specialisations as possible.

What sort of niche are you thinking of within Security? I'm not sure I understand the question

[deanwebb]

As our NAC project spreads out to the whole company, it's going to demand more of my attention... and that would mean a specialization in that field to the exclusion of other techs, for the most part. Or, rather, I could understand them about as well as an architect or manager could, but not in a way to make me useful when troubleshooting that stuff.

[icecream-guy]

As our NAC project spreads out to the whole company, it's going to demand more of my attention... and that would mean a specialization in that field to the exclusion of other techs, for the most part. Or, rather, I could understand them about as well as an architect or manager could, but not in a way to make me useful when troubleshooting that stuff.

The knowledge should be spread out to all people on the teamm, they should understand the architecture, how to troubleshoot, and fix issues. Best that all have hands on during implementation.  otherwise the megacorpration is doing themselves a disservice by having a single person only with that knowledge. the day you quit or meet some unfortunate accident, the company is hosed.  best that if they don't spread the goodness around that you do it all yourself and then when done, demand double of your salary or you quit, (and leave 3 envelopes in your desk), if you quit you will find NAC work easy with your experience and knowledge.

[deanwebb]

No question the company is best served by having more than one person know a particular system in and out. But they're not the ones managing my career as closely as I am. 

And this brings up an interesting question... which specializations are more portable? NAC, sure. What about a guy that's focused on the last SNA deployment in the world? Not so much, there... and that's where the question of how much generalization remains to still be relevant in the market.

[deanwebb]

... and after spending 4 and a half hours on the phone with a team that had messed up their server config and proving conclusively that



... I think I might just welcome a specialization shift so that my 4 and a half hour long calls involve something more entertaining...

[wintermute000]

There's specialisation e.g. network security then there's specialisation in a small niche. Like NAC/identity.

Personally, I would never do that - and it has nothing to do with the fact that I would rather stab myself in the eyeballs than work on ISE - I just don't think its a good idea long term to be so narrowly focused.

Trends change, products change, your own interests change, but you've bet it all on one horse that only goes down one lane. Esp. in an in-house (non-provider) role and its static environment.

Vendor land conversely its easier to bounce around (you'd be surprised) - SEs know each other and make valuable contacts throughout all the integrators/VARs and other vendors - and the general pre-sales skill-set translates well regardless of the underlying technology. I just dealt with a guy who spent 2 years @ F5, then a year at Aruba, now he's gone again to another vendor - nothing related technology-wise whatsoever (and he's not unique).

[deanwebb]

So that's a give and take... picking a horse for the long run or jumping from firm to firm as an SE. I've seen the SEs playing musical chairs, along with the salesmen.

Thing is, being at a big pharma/oil/financial company itself has a lot of perks. Being one of those niche SMEs means taking on managerial tasks, hopefully with a managerial bump in compensation. I'd agree that getting an increase in responsibility without an increase in comps (what we call an "Irish promotion" in the states) is desirable ONLY as a nice line on the resume for a year as a prelude to a real management/executive role somewhere else. But getting a bump in both responsibility and comps - that's a good thing, provided one is ready to go down a management track.

Not wanting to do management and a high degree of specialization does look like a vendor/VAR path beckons. That means lots of polo shirts and a mandatory gym membership.

[wintermute000]

I didn't think about the management angle.
Maybe in your circumstance it makes sense.

But if the management role only covers the niche specialisation, then how well does it translate to a wider management role in the future, or the ability to manage a 'conventional' team? Or is it simply a good way to start getting managerial XP and be able to say 'yes I've managed direct reports before'?

[Dieselboy]

As our NAC project spreads out to the whole company, it's going to demand more of my attention... and that would mean a specialization in that field to the exclusion of other techs, for the most part. Or, rather, I could understand them about as well as an architect or manager could, but not in a way to make me useful when troubleshooting that stuff.

For me personally, I've found I really do struggle learning things unless I know the nitty gritty detail as to why things are done that way. Usually if I don't understand as to why, I'll either not understand and be unable to grasp the concept as a whole; or go and set it up as I do understand and then run into the problems which results in me learning the why. It's hard for me to understand how could not be useful with troubleshooting while being able to manage or architect. Could you give an example for me?

[icecream-guy]

As our NAC project spreads out to the whole company, it's going to demand more of my attention... and that would mean a specialization in that field to the exclusion of other techs, for the most part. Or, rather, I could understand them about as well as an architect or manager could, but not in a way to make me useful when troubleshooting that stuff.

For me personally, I've found I really do struggle learning things unless I know the nitty gritty detail as to why things are done that way. Usually if I don't understand as to why, I'll either not understand and be unable to grasp the concept as a whole; or go and set it up as I do understand and then run into the problems which results in me learning the why. It's hard for me to understand how could not be useful with troubleshooting while being able to manage or architect. Could you give an example for me?

there's an old saying goes something along the line of

Those that work, work
Those that can't, manage

[deanwebb]

I didn't think about the management angle.
Maybe in your circumstance it makes sense.

But if the management role only covers the niche specialisation, then how well does it translate to a wider management role in the future, or the ability to manage a 'conventional' team? Or is it simply a good way to start getting managerial XP and be able to say 'yes I've managed direct reports before'?

The latter. Once you've handled (n) number of direct reports, then moving to roles with n+1 or n+2 reports is pretty easy and taking on larger management groups becomes the next career stretch. And, at that point, it's also an "up or out" decision regarding career progress. If the "up" doesn't exist, then the next step is an "out."

[deanwebb]

Looks like I'm getting to make that decision very soon... and I'll choose to specialize. I really like ForeScout CounterACT NAC, because it's the closest thing to SimCity that we work with here. I feel good about the vendor and its potential, like I did with Microsoft Exchange back in the late 90's.

[config t]

Back in my grasshopper days some guys with 10+ years experience gave me great advice: First understand route/switch. Everything builds on that.

So.. first I want to specialize in routing and switching, if you can call that specializing. After that, multi-vendor certs and security (firewall, IDS/IPS) skill sets. That seems to me to be what will make me the most marketable for now.