How long typically to adopt to I.T in an enterprise

So I recently got my first I.T job in a security role. The product etc is huge. Wondering how long it typically takes someone to adapt whether new or coming from a support role etc?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

TechGuru80

Most jobs...especially if the tasks or environment is new will take something like 6 months to become comfortable.

UnixGuy

6 months is the honeymoon period....

Bjcheung77

For most jobs, it's about 3-6 months. I recall my first three jobs took me about 4-5 months to get comfy in each of those positions...

hurricane1091

I'd normally agree but I stepped into the fire immediately and there was no time to adjust. If you're not the only guy doing your job though, you won't have that issue

greg9891

I would say about 5 to 7 months!

Queue

I agree you start to contribute around 6 months. After realizing this it baffles me how people can switch jobs so quickly.

TechGromit

Anywhere from 3 to 9 months, depending on the position, Higher level jobs like a Network engineer take longer to become proficient in there positions than say someone joining the deskside support team.

beads

I was clueless till about five months into the position. At six months I was accurate. Within the year I became both feared and respected. Its normal for most IT positions save development where we assume it takes three months before you start to get useful, production code out of a dev or DevOps type.

- b/eads

hurricane1091

Queue wrote: »

I agree you start to contribute around 6 months. After realizing this it baffles me how people can switch jobs so quickly.

LOL well if you are clueless, you probably have to switch jobs every 6 months so you do not get caught.

I remember the second day at my current job. Internet connectivity at HQ lost. BGP relationships everywhere still up. My answer for how long it takes to contribute is now two days as a result!!!

EANx

Depends on the job. For helpdesk or desk-side, 2-3 months is usually sufficient but six months is pretty accurate otherwise. I won't even look at a resume where the person has two of their last three jobs under 18 months if they're interviewing for a tier-2 or 3 job. I have no intention of training someone up for six months then having them leave three months later.

NetworkNewb

EANx wrote: »

Depends on the job. For helpdesk or desk-side, 2-3 months is usually sufficient but six months is pretty accurate otherwise. I won't even look at a resume where the person has two of their last three jobs under 18 months if they're interviewing for a tier-2 or 3 job. I have no intention of training someone up for six months then having them leave three months later.

I applied to a job like awhile back (forget the exact position, something like Security Analyst or Engineer) and someone from HR called me back about it and was asking me about 2 year stints at jobs. My last 3 jobs I've only been there less than 2 years on average. She just kept questioning them and nothing else. They all were small moves up and one was actually cause I moved to another part of the city. But she just couldn't get passed it and I didn't get an in person interview. Was surprised she even called me the way she kept asking about them.

Been at my current position for a little over 2 years now though...

UnixGuy

EANx wrote: »

... I won't even look at a resume where the person has two of their last three jobs under 18 months if they're interviewing for a tier-2 or 3 job. I have no intention of training someone up for six months then having them leave three months later.

You will overlook my resume

EANx

Sure would. Different organizations value different thing. Mine values stability and I mean that both ways.

Squished

EANx wrote: »

Depends on the job. For helpdesk or desk-side, 2-3 months is usually sufficient but six months is pretty accurate otherwise. I won't even look at a resume where the person has two of their last three jobs under 18 months if they're interviewing for a tier-2 or 3 job. I have no intention of training someone up for six months then having them leave three months later.

How do you argue with the statistic that people age 22-35 leave jobs every 18 months as the "standard" in the work force now. At least that's what I keep getting told anyway. I personally think it's BS.

ITSec14

My first IT job in a company of around 250 employees and 300 endpoints took about 2-3 months to get comfortable and 6 months to become fully productive. I started my current job in security engineering ~4 months ago and I'm still ramping up in many areas. We are a global company with 50,000+ employee's and 110,000 endpoints which my group manages. I fully expect it will take another 3-4 months before I can be considered to be fully productive and even then there is always still more to learn.

TechGromit

Squished wrote: »

How do you argue with the statistic that people age 22-35 leave jobs every 18 months as the "standard" in the work force now. At least that's what I keep getting told anyway. I personally think it's BS.

That may work fine when your just starting out in your career, but most managers I talk to want to see stability before hiring someone for a higher level position, such as a Network engineer. Hiring, training and getting someone up to speed on their business is expensive, it's far more cost effective to hire someone who is good at what they do and stick around for 5+ years, then hire some great hotshot that is going to jump ship at the next higher offer in 6, 12 or 18 months.

EANx

Squished wrote: »

How do you argue with the statistic that people age 22-35 leave jobs every 18 months as the "standard" in the work force now. At least that's what I keep getting told anyway. I personally think it's BS.

I don't argue with it but I do say that it's incomplete data.The age range of 22-35 is HUGE when you consider the working life of people. That covers everything from people who are just starting out (assuming college) to people that are almost retiring from the military (the earliest I am aware you can retire with pension is 37). Never mind people who are married, single, kids, no kids, etc. Most people go through at least two life transitions during that period (graduate from school, get married, have a kid, etc.)

TechGromit wrote: »

That may work fine when your just starting out in your career, but most managers I talk to want to see stability before hiring someone for a higher level position, such as a Network engineer. Hiring, training and getting someone up to speed on their business is expensive, it's far more cost effective to hire someone who is good at what they do and stick around for 5+ years, then hire some great hotshot that is going to jump ship at the next higher offer in 6, 12 or 18 months.

Absolutely. Job candidates forget that the key isn't how long people are sitting in the role, it's also about the quality of the work. Even if I found a person to fill a position the day it came open, the work they do isn't the same quality as the person who just left. Every company will have a different tolerance for job hopping based on the job in question. If I ran a call center, I probably wouldn't care if your average job history was 9 months. But if I have a position for a Cisco network designer or VMware architect, you aren't getting in front of me unless you've averaged 2+ years over the last few jobs. I'll cut someone some slack for ONE recent job because things happen, the job wasn't as advertised, the applicant is a chick and she was harassed, etc. but if you have a pattern of hopping, I don't care how good you are. I value stability, my boss values stability and I want employees that value stability. Another exception is contracting but that's a different topic.

Squished

TechGromit wrote: »

That may work fine when your just starting out in your career, but most managers I talk to want to see stability before hiring someone for a higher level position, such as a Network engineer. Hiring, training and getting someone up to speed on their business is expensive, it's far more cost effective to hire someone who is good at what they do and stick around for 5+ years, then hire some great hotshot that is going to jump ship at the next higher offer in 6, 12 or 18 months.

Thanks, I guess I have some hope! Hah!

UnixGuy

Stability is a great thing, until the company runs out of budget, or your manager leave and someone else replace them, or you realise that you haven't learned a thing in 2 years.. then the company will replace you

Nothing against stability and staying in the same employer (I stayed for 7 yrs in one place), just keeping things in perspective. Things change quickly in our field and a change of job is sometimes necessary to get more exposure/money....but staying in the same company can give you a leg up for promotions..who knows.

Squished

UnixGuy wrote: »

Stability is a great thing, until the company runs out of budget, or your manager leave and someone else replace them, or you realise that you haven't learned a thing in 2 years.. then the company will replace you

Nothing against stability and staying in the same employer (I stayed for 7 yrs in one place), just keeping things in perspective. Things change quickly in our field and a change of job is sometimes necessary to get more exposure/money....but staying in the same company can give you a leg up for promotions..who knows.

I'm at 8 years. We're out of budget(have been for 3+ years) and haven't done a new thing in 5+ years. I'm burnt.