Having been active in the job market for awhile, I have been surprised that while there are numerous project management opportunities out there, a long term IT PM seemingly has less chance of being a fit for them. The reason for this is that a majority of these
job posting are domain-specific.
How does this lessen the chance of a seasoned PM being a fit? Let's look at an example:
Let's say that you were a whiz-bang C programmer back in the 80's or early 90's (yeah, you know, back in the last century), and you evolved into a leadership position, first as a team lead, and then as a "Project Manager". You find that you are good at project management and before you know it, you realize that you have done 6 or 7 projects. Since you like what you're doing, you decide that this is something to pursue for the rest of your career. What's wrong with that?
The real problem is that once you commit to being a professional project manager, you attack the profession with passion and energy to the exclusion of what got you to that level... and your once-formidable technical skills wither. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing....just as long as you stay in the same enterprise. If you are downsized, or otherwise find yourself jobless, you awake to a job market that wants PM skills AND Java, or Ab Initio, or SAP, etc.
If you are a domain-neutral PM, you will find that more than 85% of the project manager positions that are listed are requiring specific technical skills, or particular industry experience to go along with that PMP of yours.
There is an obvious message in here for you young-uns of the PM congregation out there: "Keep your tech skills sharp....and stay abreast of current technology!!"
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
On Faster Horses
I find it interesting that people like to view Henry Ford's quote, "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses", as being an affront to innovation and collaborative development.
On the face of it, Ford seems to be saying that the consumer really has no influence on innovation. Indeed, that is the meaning of the words as they stand--the content. Now let's look at the circumstances under which these words could have originated, or the context.
Horses and horse-powered wagons had been in use for centuries; so, this is the point of reference that people could wrap their minds around. It would be natural for them to use that reference as the basis to describe an innovation that could improve their transportation needs, thus "faster horses". When looking at innovation from this perspective, how can one hurdle the obstacle of legacy knowledge to make the shift to a new unimaginable means of transportation?
To bring innovation by envisioning a new, unheard-of technology requires thinking of a different order: thinking propelled by genius. It is thinking of a higher order unfettered by the bounds of common knowledge...it is something entirely new; not just breeding faster horses. So do we get there to that higher order of thinking by collaborating with the users of horses? I believe that this kind of new thought occurs most often in the vacuum of individual creation, when the thinker using his experiences and his vision of 'what could be' brings about that singular new idea that lifts the rest of us to a different, higher reference point...i.e. mass production and use of motor vehicles.
Keep in mind, Henry Ford also said, "If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own", which indicates that he DID realize the value of collaboration.
On the face of it, Ford seems to be saying that the consumer really has no influence on innovation. Indeed, that is the meaning of the words as they stand--the content. Now let's look at the circumstances under which these words could have originated, or the context.
Horses and horse-powered wagons had been in use for centuries; so, this is the point of reference that people could wrap their minds around. It would be natural for them to use that reference as the basis to describe an innovation that could improve their transportation needs, thus "faster horses". When looking at innovation from this perspective, how can one hurdle the obstacle of legacy knowledge to make the shift to a new unimaginable means of transportation?
To bring innovation by envisioning a new, unheard-of technology requires thinking of a different order: thinking propelled by genius. It is thinking of a higher order unfettered by the bounds of common knowledge...it is something entirely new; not just breeding faster horses. So do we get there to that higher order of thinking by collaborating with the users of horses? I believe that this kind of new thought occurs most often in the vacuum of individual creation, when the thinker using his experiences and his vision of 'what could be' brings about that singular new idea that lifts the rest of us to a different, higher reference point...i.e. mass production and use of motor vehicles.
Keep in mind, Henry Ford also said, "If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own", which indicates that he DID realize the value of collaboration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
