Is it possible to be good on many systems/techs

rockstar81

I am currently watching lots of cbt nuggets videos and labbing. Currently going through all the server 2012 videos, ex 2013, vmware, sccm - is it possible to learn/be good on so many systems?

dave330i

Yes. You can be few inches deep and mile wide.

RouteMyPacket

Sure, my entire career up until a few years ago consisted of "jack of all trades, master of none" or aka a "generalist". I just got sick of it because it's extremely difficult if not impossible to become a real expert working in that fashion.

I want to be an expert, an "assassin". I'm sent in when nobody else can handle it..call in Rambo..that's me. ha

Plantwiz

I think it is possible for one to become very versed in a number of different technologies, but this will happen through experience, not watching videos. You can understand much on the surface from reading and watching, but it takes time and experience (mistakes) to actually 'learn' the technologies and be good.

When disciplines overlap, sure, it is easy to float between several and be reasonable good - sort of like learning to speak several languages. Once one learns a few key languages, they have a bit easier time picking up additional language, however, if one never speaks the language and merely reads books, listens to tapes, or uses Rosetta Stone without speaking with actual native speakers, that knowledge dwindles quickly.

It's possible - though it will take time, a lifetime for some.

EV42TMAN

I agree it is, right now in my current job on any day I could have to work on Server 2003/2008/2012, Exchange 2003/2007/2010/2013/ Sharepoint 2010/2013, VMware 5.0/5.1/5.5, Watchguard firewalls, and Cisco/Dell switching. Over time it gets easily because you'll understand how it all works together.

RouteMyPacket

Plantwiz wrote: »

I think it is possible for one to become very versed in a number of different technologies, but this will happen through experience, not watching videos. You can understand much on the surface from reading and watching, but it takes time and experience (mistakes) to actually 'learn' the technologies and be good.

When disciplines overlap, sure, it is easy to float between several and be reasonable good - sort of like learning to speak several languages. Once one learns a few key languages, they have a bit easier time picking up additional language, however, if one never speaks the language and merely reads books, listens to tapes, or uses Rosetta Stone without speaking with actual native speakers, that knowledge dwindles quickly.

It's possible - though it will take time, a lifetime for some.

Excellent analysis and true..there are a few areas that overlap and would allow you to really master an area. Say borderless networks for instance, that would encompass multiple disciplines say R/S and Security..even Wireless with the ever popular BYOD

EV42TMAN wrote: »

I agree it is, right now in my current job on any day I could have to work on Server 2003/2008/2012, Exchange 2003/2007/2010/2013/ Sharepoint 2010/2013, VMware 5.0/5.1/5.5, Watchguard firewalls, and Cisco/Dell switching. Over time it gets easily because you'll understand how it all works together.

You are right in that you understand how it works together based on the environment you are in but what about you starting from scratch? Could you from a high level design architect your Network (R/S, Security, Wireless), VMware, Storage, AD (2008/2012) and Exchange? It's not a knock at all, but I highly doubt it. I couldn't, I would have to bring consultants in to do heavy lifting be it Voice or R/S, I was always stronger in systems at that time and could handle those fine.

See that's the entire premise of this thread..how "deep" can you get when you are spread across 5-6 technologies simultaneously? You can "know" them and manage them but "understanding" them top to bottom is a whole other thing all together. That is precisely why I chose to relinquish the "generalist" role. I want to master something, I want to understand it top to bottom and you cannot do that spreading yourself so thin, those days are gone with how technology is so extensive these days.

I ran an entire enterprise consisting of the network (R/S, Security, Wireless, Voice), systems (VMware, XenServer, MS 2003/200, messaging (Exchange 2003), Storage (NetApp, EMC, Equallogic), Voice (CUCM/Unity/CCX). A generalist is very valuable if you can find a good one. There is no arguing that...it comes down to personal goals. We each have our own.

the_Grinch

If you work for an MSP you'll literally be what you are asking about. In my time there, you had to just become an expert in something for a period of time and if they stayed you were no officially the expert. But that didn't mean you stopped working on anything else. We had a guy who loved Exchange (bless his heart) and there wasn't anything in Exchange he couldn't do. But he also did all types of server work and Citrix stuff as well. Then helpdesk tickets when he didn't have project work. But if something big with Exchange came in, here you go sir.

RobertKaucher

Of course it is possible for an individual to be accomplished in multiple fields. The real question is, "Is it possible for me."

But regarding the generalist discussion... I just want to point out that any individual who can think critically and solve problems and do those things well can literally learn the fundamentals of a few technologies and operate at a better than mid-level in all of those fields. Those individuals can be really good at a few different things and still master one.

nonstopcrudivore

Plantwiz wrote: »

I think it is possible for one to become very versed in a number of different technologies, but this will happen through experience, not watching videos. You can understand much on the surface from reading and watching, but it takes time and experience (mistakes) to actually 'learn' the technologies and be good.

When disciplines overlap, sure, it is easy to float between several and be reasonable good - sort of like learning to speak several languages. Once one learns a few key languages, they have a bit easier time picking up additional language, however, if one never speaks the language and merely reads books, listens to tapes, or uses Rosetta Stone without speaking with actual native speakers, that knowledge dwindles quickly.

It's possible - though it will take time, a lifetime for some.

I agree with you, Plantwiz:) It is possible to be well verse in anything but it will take time and I think you must be very interested to learn new things always.

DevilWAH

I would say it is important to have a range of skills if you ever want to be an expert in one. To many times I meet CCIE who dont have a clue about any thing other then routers. Yes they can make packets dance in a lab environment but give them a real world and they have no idea how to apply there skills to the real world. I think any engineer worth his salt should be able to set up an working end to end network with storage/email/user control and basic security. These days a bit of virtual systems and voice would not go amiss.

These are skill I think are best learnt at the helpdesk level when people are self studying and learning the ropes using things like virtual box and vmeware to learn about the systems they are supporting. you then build up form here. Some people will remain jack of all trades, other will end up specialising in one or two areas.

Me personal I specialise in core networking (routers and switches), have decent skills in voice, wireless, vmware, Lync, windows, firewall/security, to the point I designed configured and trouble shoot them in live networks. I think if you have an active intrest in IT you will naturally branch out in to other areas as you gain more experience.

wallpaper_01

I was going to start off all Cisco and CCNA/CCNP/CCIE but changed my mind.

I did CCNA now im doing MCSA Server 2012 and next im doing L+/RHCSA, THEN I will start CCNP/CCIE route. I have a very good idea of Windows but not Server and I know a little linux but im no pro. So I wanted to expand on those before going CCNP/CCIE route.

Thought it would server me well to have a bit of knowledge on other stuff in case I had to do a job with those techs. Ultimately the goal is Cisco Net engineer but im way off that! Need that first job which is probably going to be as a Server engineer/phone answerer! Gotta start at the bottom, better to get this knowledge now than later.

Snow.bros

RouteMyPacket wrote: »

Excellent analysis and true..there are a few areas that overlap and would allow you to really master an area. Say borderless networks for instance, that would encompass multiple disciplines say R/S and Security..even Wireless with the ever popular BYOD




You are right in that you understand how it works together based on the environment you are in but what about you starting from scratch? Could you from a high level design architect your Network (R/S, Security, Wireless), VMware, Storage, AD (2008/2012) and Exchange? It's not a knock at all, but I highly doubt it. I couldn't, I would have to bring consultants in to do heavy lifting be it Voice or R/S, I was always stronger in systems at that time and could handle those fine.

See that's the entire premise of this thread..how "deep" can you get when you are spread across 5-6 technologies simultaneously? You can "know" them and manage them but "understanding" them top to bottom is a whole other thing all together. That is precisely why I chose to relinquish the "generalist" role. I want to master something, I want to understand it top to bottom and you cannot do that spreading yourself so thin, those days are gone with how technology is so extensive these days.

I ran an entire enterprise consisting of the network (R/S, Security, Wireless, Voice), systems (VMware, XenServer, MS 2003/200, messaging (Exchange 2003), Storage (NetApp, EMC, Equallogic), Voice (CUCM/Unity/CCX). A generalist is very valuable if you can find a good one. There is no arguing that...it comes down to personal goals. We each have our own.

Who gets a better income between the two, a Generalist and a Specialist?

RouteMyPacket

Snow.bros wrote: »

Who gets a better income between the two, a Generalist and a Specialist?

Most likely the specialist, he is the "expert" but make no mistake about it you can also be compensated very well as a generalist. It's not like they wouldn't get paid well, into the six figures for the solid ones or the ones who are good enough liars/bullsh@#!ers

Again, personal preference. I got sick of handling everything, to this day Voice makes me sick to think about. I absolutely cannot stand it.

As far as the comment that a CCIE knows nothing but "routers", that is a far from accurate statement. Once you get your IE, you can choose to do what you want, you've earned that right. Even today, i'm not an IE but I won't touch a server..been there done that and don't want to deal with that side of the field anymore. I'm a network engineer, I will focus on Security/R&S/Wireless, again "my" choice.

DevilWAH

RouteMyPacket wrote: »

As far as the comment that a CCIE knows nothing but "routers", that is a far from accurate statement. Once you get your IE, you can choose to do what you want, you've earned that right. Even today, i'm not an IE but I won't touch a server..been there done that and don't want to deal with that side of the field anymore. I'm a network engineer, I will focus on Security/R&S/Wireless, again "my" choice.

I don't think any one said all CCIE's knows nothing but routers. Only that Some CCIE know nothing but routers, because they have never worked on a help desk, never touched the server or desk top side and simple gone straight in to Certification study to jump in at the high end. And some of these types of engineers are not actually very good as they have such a closed mind and "by the book" way of looking at things.

As for compensation some of the very best paid people are the Generalist. When I worked with the big Oil companies the directors and management of IT where often intelligent individuals that had a good understanding of many areas of IT as well as there specialised area. Many where ex tecnical staff who had spent 15-20 years as experts in there fields before moving up to senior positions. they may well have been managing people who on paper where well above them in terms of current certifications, but they held there roles and were respected because they could manage people from multiply disciplines with a good understanding of all of there roles.

I think in an IT career you generally go through a number of phrases. from General dogs body, to specialise, and then you chose between staying as a technical specialised or looking at management where the specialism is replaced by the "big picture". There are plenty of both Generalists and Specialists at the very top earning in to 7 figures.

networker050184

I don't think comparing a specialized technical expert to a director with generalized knowledge is what the conversation here is about. Of course directors are paid well. They have plenty of responsibilities your tech person wouldn't. It's more about being on the technical side of things and in my experience the specialized expert is going to earn a lot more than the generalist but there are always going to be exceptions. Consultants billing hours are one of the main examples.

To the original question, sure it is possible to be an expert at many technologies, but who really has time for that? It's hard enough to become an expert and stay on top of one technology and have a personal life. Much less trying to do it for multiple technologies. Most people I know that consider themselves experts on both sides of the network and systems fields are usually very rusty and have outdated knowledge on one side or the other. The technology moves so fast it's just hard to keep up on many topics to the expert and cutting edge level.

it_consultant

Keep a good general understanding of technologies, even if you specialize. The market changes and there are plenty of grey beards who have been specialized out of a job. You want to be able to extricate yourself FROM a specialty and be able to pick up another one in this industry otherwise you will be left behind. It has happened to mainframers, DTMF telephone guys, and soon network guys (SDN anyone?). If you are a network guy with your CCNP:RS AND you know quite a bit about VMWARE then SDN will not work you out of a job. You will simply move from the CLI of the router to the openflow controller. If you have never seen a BASH interface before and you have no idea what PERL is and iSCSI sounds like Apple's next product - well...

networker050184

The SDN thing is getting more into are you specializing in a vendor, interface or technology? If you only specialize in Cisco CLI, yeah you are going to be screwed regardless of SDN or whatever the next big thing is. If your specialization is networking and you use any tool or interface available then you aren't going to be left behind. Networking at the large scale is already about automation and traffic engineering more than anything. SDN is just another way of doing it.

it_consultant

networker050184 wrote: »

The SDN thing is getting more into are you specializing in a vendor, interface or technology? If you only specialize in Cisco CLI, yeah you are going to be screwed regardless of SDN or whatever the next big thing is. If your specialization is networking and you use any tool or interface available then you aren't going to be left behind. Networking at the large scale is already about automation and traffic engineering more than anything. SDN is just another way of doing it.

Well, that is oversimplifying it, IMHO - there are vendor specific implementations of SDN (VMWARE, Cisco) but openflow is well, open. I mean, we are talking about breaking down the protocol stack almost completely and replacing them with openflow commands. We will still need network people but they will need to have skills which used to be much more aligned with system admins than network engineers and that is the crux of what I am talking about. When mainframers went out of style it wasn't because servers went away it was because the skills needed to operate mainframes didn't translate to microservers. Same thing with DTMF phones, it isn't that phones went away but the skills to admin them are very different. On that note, I know plenty of phone guys that got on the IP bandwagon successfully but it was a paradigm shift to them. In fact, I prefer IP phone guys who started on the old digital systems - they tend to have a better concept of call routing and flow.

When we are handing out our pearls of wisdom to people about specialization and generalization it is important to remember that IT has been through a couple of these cycles and to look long term at your career and make sure you do not paint yourself into a corner.

networker050184

It just comes down to not specializing in a certain vendor or implementation of technology. Specialize in a technology and move with the punches of how it is implemented and used. The voice guys are a great example. If you want to specialize in voice don't tie your entire career to Avaya PBX or Cisco Call Manager. Tie your career to voice. A lot of people said the same thing about voice guys being replaced by sys admins because Call Manager was now on a Windows server rather than a purpose built PBX. Didn't happen and I don't see it happening for SDN either. The implementations of SDN I've used required very little sys admin skill just like when I was admining Call Managers.

Snow.bros

Since i have started making an entry i have noticed something, with regards to certification sometimes we just take direction based on the company you work for in other words whatever technology the company supports you must have a good knowledge about it backed up by a certification for example you find companies that support different vendor technologies which makes it a tech/engineer's responsibility to have a good knowledge about those technologies, so i think if you choose to specialize in one vendor technology, are you not cornering yourself and limiting yourself to get more opportunity especially if you are an entry level techs like me who is willing to take any opportunity that may present itself.

Hope i make sense.

RouteMyPacket

networker050184 wrote: »

It just comes down to not specializing in a certain vendor or implementation of technology. Specialize in a technology and move with the punches of how it is implemented and used. The voice guys are a great example. If you want to specialize in voice don't tie your entire career to Avaya PBX or Cisco Call Manager. Tie your career to voice. A lot of people said the same thing about voice guys being replaced by sys admins because Call Manager was now on a Windows server rather than a purpose built PBX. Didn't happen and I don't see it happening for SDN either. The implementations of SDN I've used required very little sys admin skill just like when I was admining Call Managers.

In all the years I managed CUCM/Unity/CCX it had absolutely nothing to do with being familiar with Windows, and I am talking CUCM 4.2 when it sat on that thinned down version of 2000 Server. CUCM requires Voice skills/knowledge *shudders*

W Stewart

Snow.bros wrote: »

Since i have started making an entry i have noticed something, with regards to certification sometimes we just take direction based on the company you work for in other words whatever technology the company supports you must have a good knowledge about it backed up by a certification for example you find companies that support different vendor technologies which makes it a tech/engineer's responsibility to have a good knowledge about those technologies, so i think if you choose to specialize in one vendor technology, are you not cornering yourself and limiting yourself to get more opportunity especially if you are an entry level techs like me who is willing to take any opportunity that may present itself.

Hope i make sense.

You're probably not going to be specializing that much at the entry level. You should probably focus on taking every opportunity to get your hands on different technologies when starting out so you can find out where you want to go in your career. Once you get into more advanced roles at larger companies, your focus may narrow down to a specific area but not likely to one particular vendor.