Specialization: Making It Work For You!
Thomas M. Cagley Jr.When did process, documentation and certifications become the goal rather than a path for attaining project success? This frightening question caused me to relate two seemingly different concepts during quite times of contemplation over the past few weeks. The first was the impact of hyper-specialization in the process improvement world (and by extension anywhere it is used) and the second was a need to refocus process improvement groups on helping organizations deliver project results. When these two concepts are considered as related and potentially as a cause and effect, these two ideas were enough to cause me to lose sleep (and I do not sleep that much as it is). The potential of a relationship should serve as a clarion call for process improvement organizations and improvement “specialists” in particular to redouble their efforts to deliver systemic, demonstrable results.Specialization (and by extension hyper-specialization) has been a hallmark of manufacturing since the first assembly line and later honed by the advent of industrial engineering (championed by Charles Taylor). Taking a historically perspective the manufacturing model long ago supplanted the craft model as the gold standard because it was an effective and efficient means of addressing repeatable tasks. Understanding rationale for this shift in paradigms is important because as a metaphor, the manufacturing model has been used in many other industries including software development and process improvement. The never-ending search for greater efficiencies has now evolved specialization into hyper-specialization. In many cases efficiency has become the goal rather than effectively delivering project results.Specialists and hyper-specialists have the some or all of the following attributes: o Defined by bodies of knowledge,o Are certified,o Possess specific or point specific expertiseThe attributes of hyper-specialization are important to explore and describe in order to understand their potential impact. The first two attributes; defined bodies of knowledge and certifications to support those bodies of knowledge specialties must be considered in tandem. Bodies of knowledge (I would suggest) describe the minimum base of knowledge required to perform a specific role and certification indicates whether the person or organization has attained that level of knowledge. Broadly both of these attributes of specialization are valuable but can lead to narrowing of specialties as the body of knowledge grows (breadth versus width of knowledge).Specialists by definition have specific expertise (hopefully expertise and experience are inter-related). In the CMMI world for example, one specialist role might be a process and product quality assurance analyst (PPQA) or in the development world, a SCRUM Master. One of the most interesting and persistent features in the US economy has been the preference to seek out specialists. Specific expertise supported by defined bodies of knowledge and certification to establish bona fides combined with a preference for specialists can lead to a hyper-specialization spiral (my specialist is more specialized than your specialist). Regardless of the hyper-specialization spiral, specialization has been a persistent feature of the industrial world because it generally provides repeatable, efficient and effective results. The theory is supported in most cases and even by simple observation and logic. Who would have a higher number of positive outcomes for heart by-pass operations, a cardiologist or your family physician? Heck given all of those benefits unless the problem requires multiple specialties or the law diminishing returns sets in for specialists there would be no reason not to continuously leverage more and more specialized personnel for all projects. The real world unfortunately contributes both scenarios and when the law of diminishing does returns kicks in it is easy to ignore the evidence. The greatest benefit of specialists (and their kissing cousins hyper-specialists) is their ability to apply very specific expertise to address problems. Like a microscope specialists gain both effectiveness and efficiency by specific targeting of solutions. Hyper-specialization takes targeting to the next level (more of a “tunneling microscope” than a standard microscope) which may solve the specific issue but de-tune the overall system. The de-tuning occurs due to a loss of a systematic view and balance. A solution that leverages the best of specialists and hyper-specialists while maintaining balance is the use of teams that combine a generalist or integrator with the needed range of specialists. The problem with this solution is one of cost. Two heads cost more than one. Inserting a holistic view (the role of the generalist or integrator) makes this a very solvable problem assuming you can afford it and provides the value of specialization and holistic thought. Specific targeting allows for unique methods of delivery based on the specialist’s field however the word targeted also can be code for not having to compromise (back to the balance discussion) or to settle into a delivery vehicle rut. Using the same method of delivery for all process changes calls to mind the classic maxim, “if you only have a hammer everything looks like a nail.” Regardless of the level of specialization, each problem and the process leveraged to fix the problem will be unique. If you have to use nails to fix every problem you are faced with the results may work but be awfully messy.
Specialization and hyper-specialization are important techniques in the IT environment whether it is implementing software process improvement projects or solving the current network issue du jour. Making the technique work and work well is paramount if you are going to have a full set of tools and techniques to solve problems. My adive to you is to lower the walls raised by the insulation caused by specialization. Consider “tours of duty” where SPI personnel are transferred into the SPI group from operational groups. Embedding SPI personnel inside operational groups during implementation is another. The goal is to expose the SPI group to diversity of thought and training AND have them bring that experience back to the team. Whether through including generalists or leveraging tours of duty, diversity of thought will help provide the raw materials for developing big picture solutions; a reflection of systemic thinking.
