Hmm...from your summary this reads as if the author has found a system that works for them, and has assumed that it therefore works (and is appropriate) for everybody. I'd suggest that it all depends on the individual. Considering this in the world of engineering, what I've found in engineering management / leadership over very many years is that some engineers are specialists, some are generalists, a few are generalists turned specialists, and many are specialists turned generalists. But I'd be very wary of saying that any of these is the "correct" or "best" approach.

One of the useful, and often overlooked, aspects of professional engineering is that it is a team activity, which means we can accommodate a range of approaches. If someone wants to start a specialist and stay a specialist then that's fine (albeit assuming their specialism is actually useful!), similarly if someone wants to start a generalist and stay a generalist then that's also fine (we wouldn't have any project mangers otherwise!). And if they want to move between the two that's fine too.

Neurodiversity has an important impact here as well. Very, very, VERY simplistically: aspects of the autism spectrum may make it more comfortable for the person to concentrate on a specialism, aspects of ADHD may make generalism more appealing, and for those (not uncommon) with some of each then all bets are off and it's a case of finding what best suits the individual.

Now a caveat: I am now (towards the end of my career) really appreciating the fact that I did a very generalist pre-degree apprenticeship, something I really didn't appreciate at the time (in fact got quite grumpy about - young adults can often be quite daft) as I wanted to be a specialist. However, what I've realised is that I am actually more naturally a generalist - or more accurately I've described my expertise as comb shaped, it's broad with a number of narrow specialisms. But I'm very well aware that's just me - I greatly appreciate the support of those who've only ever worked in a narrow area but know that area really, really well, much better than I ever would.

What I find more important is respect for those different development styles and outcomes, including an understanding of their benefits and their limitations. Which is what makes me wary of anyone who claims their approach is the "best" - and I'm not just referring to this synopsis here, but any statement of "to be a good / successful engineer your background / training / education / approach must be xxx".

Very interesting topic, thanks for posting,

Andy

Andy thank you very much for such a detailed reply! I find myself agreeing with you. You make a good argument that what we need is a 'range' of both generalists and specialists in an organization. You're right there is no one way to approach anything, let alone skill development. Thank you again for your reply.

I agree with Andy. this is one of many valid approaches, and I think this is rather like all those 'get rich quick with David Brent' or 'learn Spanish in 3 weeks' type publications -  it plays to a sort of person who likes to be told what to do by someone who appears to know more than they do, and relates to something that lots of people can already do, but presumably not the purchaser.

The chosen method will of course work for enough people that there will be glowing reviews, but such an approach is only limited to learning stuff that is already known, and people of the same mindset.

At the cutting edge of science and novel engineering, the book has not yet been written, and once the finding out and failed experiments are all over, writing it will be someone's retirement earner.

The distinctions between various learning methods all break down at this point - all we have is experience - the more of it and the more varied it is, the more likely that someone in the team will be able to say ' Hang on a minute lads, I've got a great idea!'  at the moment it all looks doomed.

That said I have no objection to folk learning in any way that suits them - so long as they let me do my own things my way !

Mike.

In my experience there's certainly advantages to be had in already having skills that are vaguely related to what you're trying to learn - a surprising number of techniques and principles are common across a very wide spectrum (try wet plastering a wall, then ice a cake with royal icing - the process, even in some of the details, is surprisingly similar) - and that then helps with cross-pollination of ideas.

That does come at a cost though - if you try to learn everything else before the thing you think you need to know, you'll never get there. Likewise some brief broad brush taster of other subjects might well not give you enough detail to be useful. Being able to tell in advance which other areas will happen to be useful to a particular area of interest can likely only be done with hindsight.

I reckon you might has well just read up on whatever takes your fancy, as well as what you need to do, and leave it to luck to find the synergies,

   - Andy.

Thanks for all your replies. I think what the book is talking about is a T-shaped engineer. Someone who has a specialization and can also do other things. In my experience, T-shaped people are more creative than I-shaped people. But this is just an opinion, not science.

 To re purpose your use of width/depth of knowledge imagery, as they get older and acquire more experience generally I see 'T' folk become more like 'n' or 'm' or in some cases more like a viaduct, as more areas of deep understanding are added, usually one per stressful late night sweat type project.

Those who like sound bite labels call this effect  "lifelong learning" or CPD (Continuous Professional Development)

The opposite is the chap who has ten years experience,  but less usefully on inquiry it is just the same one year repeated ten times. That I think is your "I" knowledge  model. ;-)

M

mapj1 said:

it is just the same one year repeated ten times. That I think is your "I" knowledge 

Or, to fair to them , they can can be developing, but only in a very specialist area. So in my field, the engineer who only knows about railway sleepers, and has worked with them for 40 years, but is very up to date with them and knows the latest technology and opportunities for improvement in huge detail! Invaluable if we are innovating around railway sleepers (yes, my job is that exciting sometimes :D), but without necessarily understanding the wider context of their work. 

I remember someone I used to really enjoy working with who was a designer of plastic film capacitors until he retired, he ended up as one of a very tiny handful of people in the UK (and indeed the world) that really understood that field. He'd cheerfully admit that he was an I shaped engineer, and we used to swap sob stories about his latest management (it was a small company that regularly changed hands of owning companies) trying to get him to take wider responsibility, which not only did he not want but actually would have distracted him from being a world leader in his narrow field. And indeed would have distracted him from adding real value to his business, we used their capacitors because we knew their designer understood them inside out and could innovate them to our requirements. So linking back to Julian's point, you do generally need a T shaped team to innovate successfully - it needs deep knowledge of the technology and wide knowledge of the application - but that can come from a "I" and a "-", we knew the application and Nigel could develop his capacitors to meet it.

But I would agree that it's not a career path I'd recommend to everyone (in fact hardly anyone), but for those who it suits and whose fields stay relevant it can be very pleasant. But I wouldn't recommend being an I shaped engineer whose expertise is audio frequency analogue op-amp filter design. Been there...you can either get grumpy that you're not appreciated by the rest of the world or accept that this was fine in the 1980s but the the world has now moved on!

And absolutely for most of us going for the n or m or more engineer is good.

Cheers,

Andy