Jack of all trades, master of none

unclerico

I'd like to know where you all stand on being a jack of all trades type of IT professional. I've been in IT for about 10 years and every one of my jobs required me to wear many hats. I've never had a problem with it until now. I am the only Sr. Level IT person in my company. I manage all things Windows, network (Juniper, Cisco, HP, Extreme), wan optimization, security (Palo Alto, Cisco), VPN, wireless, VMware, SAN/NAS (EMC, Compellent, NetApp), Exchange, systems management (KBOX), antivirus (symantec), and remote support appliance (bomgar). We'll be adding Citrix and SharePoint into the mix over the next few months. We just purchased another company so now I am leading the inter-forest AD and Exchange migration. We have 25 facilities and about 400 very demanding users. We have a team of 8 (not including myself and the director) and only one of those 8 could be considered a sys admin, I say considered because I try to delegate things and end up having to do them anyways.

I used to love getting my hands into the guts of many different technologies, and I used to think it was a huge positive. My feeling now is that all of these hats are making me lose my edge in my bread and butter which is routing/switching/security. I cringe at the thought of troubleshooting a windows box. I used to love VMware, got my VCP and everything, but man I'd love to hand that off to someone else. I have ripped and replaced so much gear over the past 10 months, but haven't had any time to actually write formal documentation for the changes.

I just think I've come to that point in my career where I need to specialize in one, two, or three areas as opposed to 10 or 15. Anyone else in a similar situation?

jahsoul

I'm not in a similar situation but I think the same. I never wanted to be a jack of all trades. It's cool and all to learn a lot of different things but I don't want to spread myself too thin. Will it hurt me in the long run? I don't think so. While everyone wants someone that can do it all, they turn to SMEs when they can't get something done.

SteveLord

I am in a jack of all trades position. I like it overall, but I have felt what you're feeling right now before.

However, by this time next year...I'll be more of a database administrator. SQL was never huge in my job, but now it's going to be. The positive side to this is I plan to file for a reclassification of my job title with the state....and hope they see things my way. Would mean a nice salary boost.

And yeah, luckily...I know a lot of SMEs in the state I can talk to about security, servers, VMWare, SQL, HTML, Linux, etc etc. One of the best things about my job.

djfunz

Interesting that you bring this up because our manager who's been in the business for over 10 years had a long conversation with me the other day about this. He said that the Systems Administrator is exactly that. The jack of all trades. If there is a problem with something, we are the central communication and routing point for all the specialists. Programmers, NOC, Users, Managers etc. The Sys. Admin connects all these people together if there's a problem in order to get it fixed. We are the coordinators. To excel in this position, one has to be the jack of all trades.

This was the basic premise of what he was telling me and at this point in my career, I'm fine with it. I want to learn as much as possible and later in life, if I have an area where I'm really interested in going that next level, then I still can.

UnixGuy

While having a good theoritcal (and hands-on whenever possible) background on different aspects of IT is essential, I think it's a good idea to be an expert in at least one field.

N2IT

UnixGuy wrote: »

While having a good theoretical (and hands-on whenever possible) background on different aspects of IT is essential, I think it's a good idea to be an expert in at least one field.

I used to be in that situation, but not with as many technologies. The fact you can keep up and perform within those technologies shows to me you have great aptitude and work ethic. Cheers to that.

With that said I would strive to narrow down my scope a tad. If you could channel all that knowledge and work effort into 1, 2, or 3 technologies you would thrive in my opinion. You wouldn't feel burn out and you could become a master at something. Master at something in theory means more money.

Good luck I hope things work out for you.

powerfool

I am going to have to disagree with the general sentiment. Being a jack of all trades is fantastic. However, I would not go that route if you cannot be a master in at least one area. If you look at virtualization, or instance, you cannot be a specialist... because if you want to be a virtualization "specialist" you have to understand the hardware, the storage, the network, and the systems... all of that on top of the virtualization support systems. If you look at larger environments where employers can afford specialists, as well.... the senior guy is rarely ever a specialist... he is something that anyone can go to for assistance.... a jack of all trades, master of most.

jmritenour

powerfool wrote: »

I am going to have to disagree with the general sentiment. Being a jack of all trades is fantastic. However, I would not go that route if you cannot be a master in at least one area. If you look at virtualization, or instance, you cannot be a specialist... because if you want to be a virtualization "specialist" you have to understand the hardware, the storage, the network, and the systems... all of that on top of the virtualization support systems. If you look at larger environments where employers can afford specialists, as well.... the senior guy is rarely ever a specialist... he is something that anyone can go to for assistance.... a jack of all trades, master of most.

+1 on that. I know some really smart guys that know *nix operating systems inside and out that don't have a clue about what a subnet mask actually does. And I know a CCIE who probably understood routing and switching better than anyone I've ever met, who was pretty helpless at anything beyond the Cisco CLI.

I'm pretty comfortable with any and all technology, and I always try to maintain the mindset that there's nothing I can't do - some (well, a lot of) things I don't know how to do YET, but I am certainly capable of figuring it out.

The nice thing about being able to do many thing is it gives you a lot of options. I'm currently on the systems administration side of things, and I'm getting to learn a LOT about different distros of Linux and Solaris (OS & hardware), but I'll probably eventually shift my focus back to networking and/or security.

pham0329

I'm in the same boat. I was brought on primarily an Exchange admin, but I'm responsible for our Network (purely Cisco), Exchange, Citrix, VPN, Sharepoint, Hyper-Vs, HP SAN, Anti-Virus (Vipre), and, as you put it, all things Windows.

Although the company is fairly small at 250ish users, we only have 3 people in our department. I'm the network admin, we have a desktop admin, and the IT Director. Eventually, I want to either specialize in Exchange, or Cisco!

UnixGuy

Thanks man, same to you. But I've noticed that real money is with real specializations. For example someone with a CCIE and years of experience in an area would make more than someone who handles everything...but that's just my experience so far.

N2IT wrote: »

I used to be in that situation, but not with as many technologies. The fact you can keep up and perform within those technologies shows to me you have great aptitude and work ethic. Cheers to that.

With that said I would strive to narrow down my scope a tad. If you could channel all that knowledge and work effort into 1, 2, or 3 technologies you would thrive in my opinion. You wouldn't feel burn out and you could become a master at something. Master at something in theory means more money.

Good luck I hope things work out for you.

unclerico

Good feedback guys. I know for me personally I am taking action on my want/need to become a "master" at something and have begun my quest for CCIE. The only thing that concerns me about specialization is, like jmritenour said, that it will limit the scope of opportunities that I will be a candidate for down the road. I guess the only thing I can do is become the best damn CCIE/JNCIE I can and the rest will take care of itself.

I think if we had one, maybe two more FTE's then I don't think I would be feeling burned out. It's a lot of stress to be the man and constantly being pulled in so many different directions at once. I have been making mistakes on certain things that I never, ever would have in the past due to the fact that I've got five and six different projects going on simultaneously. If we had the extra head count I feel like the quality of work would be better and details wouldn't be overlooked as often.

erpadmin

I was at this crossroads a few years ago. I had come to the conclusion that it was better for me to be familiar with what's going on in an environment than trying to do everything myself. The JOAT is a game that is best played by those who are either young or in small shops. I much rather deal with being a Database Administrator, as that still allows me to adminster systems related to the database, but not managing EVERYTHING.

Yes, there are folks that want to try to get folks who do know everything....but it's a fallacy. Specialization in one thing has allowed me to progress after years of being in IT. I could have gone the network route, or the server route....but decided that I like ERPs and databases. Now I'm trying to break into IT management.

If your route is taking you into networking, then you need to pursue that. If you can't do it where you're at, then go someplace where you can. Otherwise, you will find nothing but stress and headaches.

jcole4lsu

There are 2 ways to make yourself invaluable to employers: make yourself either highly specialized or highly adaptable. Looks like you may be the latter, now. Either way will work so you should just do whichever will make you happiest in your profession.

Chivalry1

I consider myself a JOAT (Jack of All Trades). I worked as a I.T. Consultant for many years, so it gave me the opportunity to work with MANY technologies. But there are Pro's and Con's:

JOAT (Pro): You get to learn many I.T. Technologies. Windows/Linux/Routing/Switching/Security/Databasing/Programming/Scripting...etc. At many points work is interesting and challanging.
JOAT (Con): Normally role is with a smaller company with low salary. Often overworked from the burden of supporting so much technology.

Specialization: (Pro): Often pay$ more money. Normally a larger company which provides long term career stability. You learn more about your specialization and become more marketable.

Specialization: (Con): If you decide to leave your job often this means moving to another city to maintain your salary. If you use to be a JOAT...you TRUELY missed those days of working with other technology. Separation of duties normally keeps you isolated. If you are to apply for another Job role people will categorize you to the specialization.

All in All I prefer the Specialization route.

Mishra

Most of the positions around Louisville are JOAT positions. They are smaller businesses that need to have someone who manages everything.

So location really matters. Rarely do you find jobs here that ask you to do the SAN admin and that's it.

I'm definitely in the JOAT position. I find that it is very easy to get a job when I can talk to almost every department about their technology. However, I don't ever think these kinds of positions are the highest paying position and that's the problem.

I would stay very adaptable if it came with the money. But I want to specialize to follow the money. Example, I know of a Citrix Netscaler guy that can ask for 200k.

blargoe

I am in the exact same boat. I used to enjoy being proficient in many areas and generally being flexible enough to design/admin/troubleshoot across platforms and technologies. I guess I still do to an extent, but I am burned out and have been for a while, as the business demands more and more network applications and functionality within those applications, not to mention the infrastructure to support them.

I do not regret the path my career has taken thus far. I have been blessed and have been extended terrific opportunities. I also think that having a generalist background has helped me find the couple of areas in which I would like to specialize - VMware and SQL, with a minor in Storage. But the understanding of a broad spectrum of other server applications and how they interact with SQL, how they impact system performance, security implications, etc will, I hope, give me an edge when I am ready to move on from my current position. As opposed to someone who has been focused on only storage or only security, who would be more one-dimensional.

I think my ideal position would be to get out of the sysadmin area, and instead work for a solution provider who designs and supports a subset of the areas that I work with today, hopefully in at least two of my "big three" areas.

the_Grinch

I always hated being a JOAT, but I've grown to accept it for now. In thinking about it, I find that it is end users who cause the JOAT mentaility. A lack of understanding of the skills of your IT department, leads end users to think we are all the same. At my last company, the head of the department was a programmer by trade and was hired many years ago due to his extensive knowledge of the ERP system the company used. With taking the position, he was suddenly thrusted into the daily computer problems that arose. Though they had an outside firm to work on the computer issues, they only came twice a week and most of the time a user wasn't going to wait. Was he ok at fixing computers? Sure, but it wasn't what he did on a daily basis prior and so when I came all I would here is "wow we have an actual IT guy?" or "man at least you know how to fix things!" It was sad to hear things like that since he was an awesome programmer and ERP guy. He spearheaded the conversion to Microsoft Dynamics and automated most of the process for transferring all the information from a Unix based system into Dynamics (no small feat).

Even in my current company, while speaking to a client about an issue that is network related they'll reply "I thought you were an IT guy?" Yes I am an IT guy, but my skills will only go so far. So will we always have the JOAT? Yup, but hopefully people will begin to learn that just because we are in the IT department doesn't mean we are all the same.

I do have plans though to get out of the JOAT business though. I want to move into security and the plan is to become a solid systems admin in Microsoft and RedHat. I want to hedge my bets a little and master them both, once that happens securing them and doing exploitation should be easy. Then perhaps I will make the big bucks ahahahaha

SteveLord

Working in a smaller agency (as a JOAT), I don't have the luxury of having a helpdesk act as the first line of defense or to use for dumping simple tasks on. Or a ticketing system to filter and categorize issues for me. As long as I eventually reclass to the grade that the specialists are...money won't be an issue. And I'll still be able to sleep in on weekends without having to do some 2am upgrade/maintenance deal.

If I had to eventually specialize/slide into an enterprise position around here, I'd like to do more Microsoft. But I've some of the best office flexibility around...which would be hard to give up for a little extra cash.

Aut0d1dact

I guess I’m not alone. I used to pride myself on being a JOAT, now I’m not so sure.

I was lucky to get into IT back in 1998 as a web designer, site layout / HTML code hacker. But once I got my foot in the door--I did it all, you name it I was hands-on and before you know it setting up servers, sites, applications and troubleshooting issues. No degree, no certs, just my willingness to learn and apply what I had already taught myself at home in the previous 4 years. I was-and-still-am a Geek!

That being said… I don’t want to be a JOAT and a master of nothing anymore! Sure it got me to where I am today–employed since 98… But nothing more. Just wanted to share my story.

GAngel

powerfool wrote: »

I am going to have to disagree with the general sentiment. Being a jack of all trades is fantastic. However, I would not go that route if you cannot be a master in at least one area. If you look at virtualization, or instance, you cannot be a specialist... because if you want to be a virtualization "specialist" you have to understand the hardware, the storage, the network, and the systems... all of that on top of the virtualization support systems. If you look at larger environments where employers can afford specialists, as well.... the senior guy is rarely ever a specialist... he is something that anyone can go to for assistance.... a jack of all trades, master of most.

Spot on I don't post much anymore but this SME rubbish has to stop. Those are usually the most useless people in an organization. They come up with solutions that can barely be implemented because they have no idea how the infrastructure works. There job is to answer specific questions around a technology thats about it. Look at a true cconsultants resume you'd be surprised how varied it is. Or in other terms a CCIE who's only good at switching.


**Member of the 6 figure JOAT club since 2004**

unclerico

It all depends. If you work for a large organization you will be siloed. The company will be paying you for your specialized skillset. They won't care that you've been a Sr. Windows admin if you're trying to figure out an issue with BGP. Large companies will also have design and implementation teams where members from each discipline will be required to do his or her part. If you are a contractor and specialize in one thing chances are the client calling you for your services will want you for those specific skills.

Now, if you work for a smaller company or an org. that provides professional services in a range of technologies, then you better bring all of your hats with you wherever you go. It is expected of you. Also, if you're on the bench at one of these places then you are training so it gives you the ability to take a deeper dive into the guts of the technology.

Specializing in infrastructure design/implementation will require you to know routing, switching, security, VoIP,and more than likely wireless. That's 5 key areas instead of 15. When it comes to implementing, say, a VMware infrastructure, yes I'll need to know how it makes use of storage and the network in general. Beyond that I don't need to know configuration maximums, how DRS works, how to create resource pools, how to implement fault tolerance, etc.

powerfool

I was just on a priority one call yesterday that absolutely makes meet hate the separation of duties. I cannot divulge to much info, but I cover two diverging area of responsibility already (network monitoring and Exchange) and I hopped on this call for a problem for a slow website. Now, this is fine, but the call lasted for three hours (which actually isn't that long, in historical terms) but could have quickly been addressed had separation of duties not been an issue. It was a problem with Tomcat (application server for the website)... I was able to determine this fairly quickly without having access to it... about 15 minutes... but because SME's disagreed, it took another hour for them to come into agreement... and then a while longer just to wrap up the call.

Frustrating. A case against specialization too... while I do have some specialized focus, I had a better grasp on the other areas than the specialists did. It happens all too frequently.

Heero

I prefer the specialization route, but you need a strong knowledge or technologies surrounding your specialization. For example, if you want to be a routing/switching engineer, I would think you would also want to know stuff like firewalls, load balancing, network monitoring and management, VoIP, basic server management (you will likely have several applications running on servers to support your network), and whatever else.

XeeN

One thing to keep in mind in all of this is the management track. As an IT Manager I find I have a whole new game to play with a new set of rules. I used to have lots of theories about specializing in this or that. If you don't want to go into a supervisory or true managerial position then continue to explore and debate.

I find it more important than ever to have a widespread understanding of technology and to be able to identify skilled, reliable talent who I can put to work on important projects in various areas. I have specialized strengths in certain areas but now that I'm doing less of the gritty work and managing others doing that instead I find a lot of my specialized knowledge fades without day to day use. Like I said, in my case at least it seems to be a different game.

Edit: my goal is to be a CIO/CTO.

powerfool

XeeN wrote: »

One thing to keep in mind in all of this is the management track. As an IT Manager I find I have a whole new game to play with a new set of rules. I used to have lots of theories about specializing in this or that. If you don't want to go into a supervisory or true managerial position then continue to explore and debate.

I find it more important than ever to have a widespread understanding of technology and to be able to identify skilled, reliable talent who I can put to work on important projects in various areas. I have specialized strengths in certain areas but now that I'm doing less of the gritty work and managing others doing that instead I find a lot of my specialized knowledge fades without day to day use. Like I said, in my case at least it seems to be a different game.

Edit: my goal is to be a CIO/CTO.

That is an excellent point, and is a perspective that I share. There is always debate about whether an IT manager needs a technical background or not... well, people can debate that all day... I don't care. However, I can tell you that a non-technical IT manager is going to have one heck of a hard time gaining respect from his/her employees... I won't say impossible, but close enough. If you cannot gain the respect of your employees, you will not be an effective manager. Further, if you have employees that are good at their job and are inclined to become a manager, they will make you look bad as often as possible... and for good reason.

Having a well-rounded set of experience makes you able to discuss the big picture and not get the wool pulled over your eyes.

This doesn't automatically make you a good manager, though... plenty of personal development and skills to work on there, too.

sambuca69

powerfool wrote: »

I was just on a priority one call yesterday that absolutely makes meet hate the separation of duties. I cannot divulge to much info, but I cover two diverging area of responsibility already (network monitoring and Exchange) and I hopped on this call for a problem for a slow website. Now, this is fine, but the call lasted for three hours (which actually isn't that long, in historical terms) but could have quickly been addressed had separation of duties not been an issue. It was a problem with Tomcat (application server for the website)... I was able to determine this fairly quickly without having access to it... about 15 minutes... but because SME's disagreed, it took another hour for them to come into agreement... and then a while longer just to wrap up the call.

Frustrating. A case against specialization too... while I do have some specialized focus, I had a better grasp on the other areas than the specialists did. It happens all too frequently.

Sounds like where I work. Find the problem in 20 minutes.... Now wait for another hour so the SME's can all "agree" and we implement the fix.

jahsoul

Seems like it's a lot of hate towards the specialist. lol

At the end of the day, it's pick your own poison. People can give me every reason in the world to spread myself thin but it is just not for everyone. I want to be a Network Architecture Design Engineer so I will have to specialize in design with a good understanding in , like unclerico stated, in R&S, VoIP, security and maybe wireless but to dive into something that I just don't have a desire to want to do seems like a waste of time. Money is everywhere to be made so I don't go by one formula to make it.

unclerico

XeeN wrote: »

One thing to keep in mind in all of this is the management track. As an IT Manager I find I have a whole new game to play with a new set of rules. I used to have lots of theories about specializing in this or that. If you don't want to go into a supervisory or true managerial position then continue to explore and debate.

I find it more important than ever to have a widespread understanding of technology and to be able to identify skilled, reliable talent who I can put to work on important projects in various areas. I have specialized strengths in certain areas but now that I'm doing less of the gritty work and managing others doing that instead I find a lot of my specialized knowledge fades without day to day use. Like I said, in my case at least it seems to be a different game.

Edit: my goal is to be a CIO/CTO.

You're absolutely correct in your statement. For me, I've had my time as a JOAT, I've been there and done it...it should almost be a requirement for new people coming into the industry. Being able to touch a lot of the different areas gives you the ability to find what you like and what you don't like. I'll always be able to call on that experience to help me in the future.

unclerico

powerfool wrote: »

I was just on a priority one call yesterday that absolutely makes meet hate the separation of duties. I cannot divulge to much info, but I cover two diverging area of responsibility already (network monitoring and Exchange) and I hopped on this call for a problem for a slow website. Now, this is fine, but the call lasted for three hours (which actually isn't that long, in historical terms) but could have quickly been addressed had separation of duties not been an issue. It was a problem with Tomcat (application server for the website)... I was able to determine this fairly quickly without having access to it... about 15 minutes... but because SME's disagreed, it took another hour for them to come into agreement... and then a while longer just to wrap up the call.

Frustrating. A case against specialization too... while I do have some specialized focus, I had a better grasp on the other areas than the specialists did. It happens all too frequently.

One thing you are leaving out of this is one of the biggest issues that plagues us in IT probably more than any other industry: EGO. I'm sure one or two (or more) of the SMEs didn't want to admit that he or she is wrong, or that the other person had an idea that better solved the issue at hand. Whenever I get asked for advice from an up and comer I ALWAYS tell them the biggest obstacle for you to learn is your own ego. I don't care if you've got 1 year or 20 years of experience, there are always opportunities to learn from someone else.

effekted

unclerico wrote: »

One thing you are leaving out of this is one of the biggest issues that plagues us in IT probably more than any other industry: EGO. I'm sure one or two (or more) of the SMEs didn't want to admit that he or she is wrong, or that the other person had an idea that better solved the issue at hand. Whenever I get asked for advice from an up and comer I ALWAYS tell them the biggest obstacle for you to learn is your own ego. I don't care if you've got 1 year or 20 years of experience, there are always opportunities to learn from someone else.

I want to strangle these types of people.

TLeTourneau

SteveLord wrote: »

<SNIP>... Or a ticketing system to filter and categorize issues for me. <SNIP>

May I recommend Spiceworks? Sure the tech sees some ads but the users don't and it's free.