Conference 7.286::digital

I don't disagree with the fact that there is a strong element of
amateurism, but I believe there is a different explanation to consider.

We are engaged in a dis-organized industry, lots of entrepreneurial
activity, new technology, rapid change, many people stretching to do what
very few understand thoroughly.

I submit that there are no relevant "professional" standards for such an
environment.  Digital is continually redefining the professions of
"computer system designer", "software engineer", "systems consultant",
"network planner", far in advance of what any "professional society" can
hope to envision.  We are destined to be amateurs, because in many ways
(not all) we are on the leading edge.

Perhaps the best mindset would be that of the craftsman who uses a
technology, sometimes extends it, and is guided by personal principles of
"creativity", "pride of workmanship", and "esthetics".  Unfortunately,
most people, even in the "professions", do not reach this level of
self-conscious "professionalism".  Mass education has the tendency to put
a seal of approval on all of its graduates.  In "stable" professions
like medicine and law, the professional socities have a formal
certification process that is widely recognized.

The various kinds of computer related "professions" have no such stable
unifying force.  So we all end up as amateurs without the accumulated
experience of many practicioners over many years.

Bottom line, I think "amateurism" comes with the territory, and that a
healthy dose of individual integrity is essential to remedying its worst
excesses.

Regards,

Dick

	re .1:

	I did say right up front that amateurism is not all bad.
	In fact, often amateur athletes can easily defeat the best
	professionals (e.g. in track). On the other hand, no amateur
	boxer is likely to stand up against Mike Tyson.

	Amateurism is bad where it means sloppiness, wilful ignorance,
	doing something 20 times badly when it should be done one right,
	taking pride in being above technology, turning our back on
	the facts. A professional ought to take steps to be aware
	of everything that's relevant to his field, leave no stone
	unturned in the search for excellence, and make no concessions
	whatever to mood, circumstance, or the unforeseen.

	Since I wrote the base note, another, perhaps the supreme,
	instance of amateurism occurred to me. How about a company
	that doesn't even know what its name is? "Digital Equipment
	Corporation" or "DEC" or "Digital"? There have been recorded
	instances of customers and other influential parties believing
	that "Digital" and "DEC" were different companies!

	"NEC", I believe, stands for "Nippon Electric Company". But
	I'm not sure, because I never see it in that form. However, I
	bet that NEC is better known than either DEC or Digital.

	/Tom

>	Amateurism is bad where it means sloppiness, wilful ignorance,
>	doing something 20 times badly when it should be done one right,
>	taking pride in being above technology, turning our back on
>	the facts. A professional ought to take steps to be aware
>	of everything that's relevant to his field, leave no stone
>	unturned in the search for excellence, and make no concessions
>	whatever to mood, circumstance, or the unforeseen.

    Right!  This is where the "craftsmanship" ethic comes in.  To me,
    "professionalism" often implies "do it by the book or don't do it".
    Since we don't have the luxury of not doing "it", we frequently
    assign ill-prepared or in-experienced amateurs to some tasks.  When a
    manager does this, I believe he should assume the responsibility for
    quality himself, since he can't depend on the person he assigned.
    
    By the way, I am one of those mavericks who disbelieve in
    "management as a profession".  Management is a "craft" which demands
    individual integrity at a high level of abstraction.  I certainly
    wouldn't excuse sloppiness, willful ignorance, doing it right the
    "last time", ignoring facts, or treating technology as a status
    commodity.  I just believe that the struggle for excellence is
    perpetual, implicit in our environment, and life-threatening when one
    takes a passive attitude.
    
Regards,

Dick

    CHARACTERISTIC	PROFESSIONAL		AMATEAUR 
    
    Policy		Dictated		Implied
    			(S.O.P.)		(Norms)
    
    Planning	    	by Committee		by interested parties
    			(get all inputs)	(get a champion)
    
    Influences		Factual			Anecdotal
    			(in proposal)		(in mens' room)
    
    Decisions		Elevated		Evolved
    			(formal approval)	(bluebird)
    
    Reasoning		Analytical		Seat of the Pants
    			(needs data)		(needs courage)
    
    Implementation	Formal Program		Ad Hoc Team
    			(Build Structure)	(sell others)
    
    Appearance		Organized		Sloppy
    			(Image)			(everyman)

  CHARACTERISTIC	PROFESSIONAL		AMATEAUR 

						   ^
						   |


	A few years ago I could spell "amateur", but now I am one!

		:-)

    I think there is another side to this "amateurism" question.  I have
    observed at DIGITAL, that people are assigned often to jobs based on
    their "level" or management sponsorship, as opposed to professional body
    of knowledge in the job they are moving to.
           
    This happens a lot at headquarters groups when there is a reorg. or
    downsizing, and there are people who need to find jobs.  I have seen
    many extremely incongrous changes of "profession".  I feel like they
    are saying, "He was a real good engineer, so let's move him over and
    let him be a physician for a while."  This is an exaggerated example
    (so far!), but i have seen things nearly as silly.
    
    
    There seems to be a feeling that if someone is good at one thing,
    he/she is good at everything.  (The obvious example is a good
    technician being moved into management because of good skills as a
    technician - what is the relationship?)                  
     
    

re .6 by MARBMS::TOPPING


>    I think there is another side to this "amateurism" question.  I have
>    observed at DIGITAL, that people are assigned often to jobs based on
>    their "level" or management sponsorship, as opposed to professional body
>    of knowledge in the job they are moving to.
           
I've seen this too.  I think that some managers don't understand enough
of the technical content of their projects to evaluate candidates on
their merits.  So they assign the person they "trust" the most,
regardless of qualifications.  This is based (IMHO) on a myth that
anyone in Digital can learn to do anything.  Naive, isn't it?

Let me give you another example.  Consider a "general manager" of a
manufacturing operation.  He needs to hire some subordinate managers who
can handle some of the technical issues, but who will help him evaluate
their technical competence?  If he had anyone capable of this evaluation,
they would be a candidate, no?  So what does he do?  He uses his best
judgement for the criteria he feels competent to evaluate, and ignores
the rest.

If anything speaks to the poverty of the concepts of "management as a
profession" and "hierarchical organization", this does.

Regards,

Dick

    The amateurs might mess things up.  But don't always trust the
    experts either.  Being an "expert" in something for a long
    time - sometimes means that you can no longer appreciate
    new approaches, too locked into traditional thinking, etc.
    
    I think the real answer to doing a job well is via the kind
    teaming approach where you get a good cross section of
    the hierarchy and skill and knowlege sets.  
    
    d

Re: .4

>    Influences		Factual			Anecdotal
>    			(in proposal)		(in mens' room)

						     ^
						     |

Don't say this too loudly, Rick.  Pretty soon some Lisa Olson types are going
to want equal access....

				-- Bob

    You all lost your amateur status when you took money for doing the
    job that you do!.
           
    Give me amateur sports against "professional" any day of the week.
    We are all amateurs the first time we try something; but we TRY.
    Professionals take no risks and are dull to work for!. 
    
    Amateurs will make more mistakes than a pro but at least we know
    that they are doing something. Olympians are amateurs don't forget.
    (I know that one is very debatable).
      
    I think that the wrong term is being used. Instead of "amateurs" we
    should be addressing "Incompetance". We all make mistakes. Incompetants
    make huge blunders and never fix them. Incompetance spans
    professionalism and amateurism. The difference that I see is that
    an amateur will face up to an incompetant action whereas a pro.
    will blame someone else.
    
    Just a different cut!.
    
    Eric H.     

	True, the term "amateur" is not a perfect fit. But I chose
	it advisedly. "Incompetence" is another subject - we already
	have a topic on "incompetent managers", for instance. This
	has been thoroughly dealt with in such books as "The Peter
	Principle".

	No, I chose "amateur" because all around me I see people
	who work hard and conscientiously, and do their best for
	the company. Sometimes they work harder than they really ought
	to - it would be better if they paused and reflected that
	something really is wrong, rather than striving even harder
	to plug the leaks. But so often these people are working
	without the proper resources: knowledge, experience, training,
	equipment.

	In fact, I think there is a connection to be traced between the
	philosophy of "he who proposes, disposes" so often advanced
	in this conference, and the prevalence of enthusiastic
	amateurism. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the person
	who identifies a problem (or has the courage to mention it)
	is not necessarily equipped to fix it. But usually, he or she
	is expected to do so. The result: it's done, but not done well.

	The difference boils down to what your real objective is. The
	professional's objective is simply to get results. The amateur
	has a variety of objectives: to have fun, to look good, to develop
	his own skills, to pass the time...

	/Tom

I reflected upon the word "amateur" but as it is used here in France. It does
not have a negative connotation. It simply refers to one who loves. Period. 
(I hasten to add that one's lover is a different, but related word, in French.)

My point is that amateurs perform (at something) because they do love to 
perform. Professionals may aspire to the same emotional attachement, but the
differential nuance between the words is that a professional can quite
possibly perform at a consistent level and that level is usually exceptional.
We would not expect that of an amateur, but wouldnt be surprised of his/her 
excellence either.

Denotations and connotations often confuse (at least, me.)

    Professionals can have fun too - job satisfaction matters...
    
    
    /andy/

Actually, I've been saying for years that we, in Digital, are mainly 
"professional amateurs".  True "professional" means "following occupation 
as a means of livehood" (getting paid to do it) and that doesn't mean 
knowing what you're doing.   However, to me, the word professional does 
imply a certain amount of expertise - and that is sadly lacking in many 
areas of "professional" life in Digital.  I've been a "professional 
amateur" for large chunks of my time in Digital.  By that I mean that I've 
found myself in a job where I've had no formal training, and I've learned 
on the job (making amateurish mistakes on the way).  It OK until you hit 
the sort of economic crisis we currently in - its these times that sort 
the men from boys.

I am also VERY sceptical of the so-called "experts".  I've had a number of 
personal experiences that have shown the incompetance of "experts" even in 
areas where I am most definately an amateur.  These areas are not trivial 
either - for example, Police investigations, investigations into fatal 
accidents.  Experts are often experts because a few fools believe they are
experts and are willing to acknowledge the fact.  Alternatively, rules or
laws may dictate that someone is an expert.  In this context "expert"
sometimes means authorised to tell you what to do regardless of actual
ability to do so. 

>    Professionals take no risks and are dull to work for!. 
I disagree with this.  A TRUE professional SHOULD be just as much fun to 
work with or for.  What do you want, someone who makes a few rash but 
luckily good decisions and reaches success by chance, or someone who 
carefully judges the situation and reaches success through being smarter 
than the others around?  This has no bearing on whether they are fun to 
work with.

Mike

    A good example of amateur vs professional can be taken from the
    building trades.  I've come up with a pretty accurate definition
    that seems to apply to this discussion.
    
    Professionals have the experience to look at a job, determine
    time, cost and quality, and do the job optimally.  Once they have
    enough grasp of the task they begin.  If they encounter problems
    they can recognize them quickly and have the skills to rectify them.
    
    Amatuers may do the same or better work, however they usually spend to
    much time in analysis and not enough time in setting up a production
    environment, do not consider the cost of their labor in the total, and
    are not as quick to recognize a problem track, nor as experienced in
    the area of correction. 
    
    The results.  Professionals tend to spend a bit more on materials and
    much less on labor.  They invest in quality tools, they spend time up
    front setting up the work area, they take less time to get something
    done, they do not often start over, they tend not to panic when they
    run into a problem, and they optimize the workers to the work. 
    
    Relative to this discussion I believe what is being theorized (and I
    tend to strongly agree with) is that Digital is tending to more of the
    former and less of the latter.  The result is we take too long,
    it costs to much, we are not effiecient in our capital investment
    and tend to misuse our resources.
    
    A related problem is that the amatuer manager has been given the power,
    authority and mandate to blunder along.  Professionals below them will
    be punished for critizing, pointing out mistakes, and trying to use
    correct (as learned through experience) methods. 
    
    Amatuers working with professionals find people who continuously
    disgree with amatuer methods, point out their mistakes, and do
    "professional" things that are not understood, or even considered
    wasteful and wrong.   Amatuers often find professionals surley,
    negitive, uncooperative, too quick to act, unconventional, bad team
    players, and lucky.
    
    I leave the consequences as an excercise to the reader.
    
    -Kevin
    
     

    
    
    I think I would query the use of the words, AMATEURISM and
    PROFESSIONALISM implied in the base note in describing the situation
    at Digital. A better approach would be to differentiate those terms
    and imply the difference between a GENERALIST and a SPECIALIST as well.
    The result being, that we have, AMATEUR GENERALISTS and AMATEUR
    SPECIALISTS and PROFESSIONAL GENERALISTS and SPECIALISTS.
    
    I strongly suspect the majority of people are (or at least attempt) to
    be professional in their attitude. They have a set of values which they
    try to stick to that are oriented towards doing the best for their
    clients in return for reward that acknowledges that effort. They get 
    annoyed with themselves and the mechanisms at large when they fail to 
    meet the expectations the customer has for their efforts.
    
    If there is a mis-match of skill-sets to problem space I know from
    experience the frustration this can cause. If I'm sold as an expert on
    something when I've opened the box yesterday, I dont see this as an
    indicator that I'm an Amateur in what I do. I would try to do the best
    for the customer while at the same time attempting to alter a system
    that forces me to pretend my expertise. If I consider myself a GENERALIST,
    able to solve most problems in the day to day running of a computer
    organisation, then I should not be sold as a SPECIALIST in DECxxxx if I
    am clearly not,(call it jack-of-all-trades but master of none). If I 
    profer myself as an expert when I am clearly not then I am 
    unprofessional, and I am a FRAUD. If my managers do it then they are not 
    Professional. If they do it through ignorance of my skills then they are 
    being AMATEUR in their management, if they do it knowing full well I dont 
    have the skills, then they are FRAUDS.
    
    On the other hand, I dont want someone who is an expert in DECxxxx
    being sent to solve System problems if their skill-set is not
    wide-enough or their range of scope is too narrow. This is just as
    poor. We have to realise that there is a place for those who can solve
    a wide range of problems and those who can solve the intricacies of 
    one area to the subtlest level (there are some who can do both, of
    course). We also think that all Engineers can manage projects, all
    good Specialist technical managers can manage all people, that a
    one product expert is totally adaptable.....
    
    I agree with Tom's list of problems and a lot of it comes down to lack
    of consideration when allocating human resources to problems. We mull
    over what workststions to buy and fill out lengthy justifications for
    X and Y tools as resources, but we think nothing of filling a
    "job-to-do" with the first available head without any justification or
    true consideration of the people ("Have you seen DECxxxx? You have a
    six-month on-site starting tomorrow).
    
    A craftsman (a person who has professed dedication to his craft) would
    not use the wrong tool for a job, just because it was lying around. Why do 
    we use the wrong people for the jobs we do, just because that resource
    is currently idle? We should perhaps be more
    professional and focused in the business we go after if we are not
    prepared to truly cost the value of the tools needed to do the job. If
    we have an opportunity for an expert in DECxxxx, then get an expert in
    DECxxxx, or dont do the business. If head counts get in the way, then
    actively work to change the system. All too often managers shirk their
    professional resposibility to fix business stifling decisions imposed from
    above because they dont want to rock the boat. How often has it taken
    the underlings screaming over the sound of management's nodding heads
    to get poor decisions changed?
    
    Perhaps its also the belief that you can use a generalist manager in
    all situations. We have a head of company that preaches "knowing the
    balance sheet in your head" yet we feel that a marketing manager can 
    look after support people. Understanding the business means
    understanding the tools, the nature of the clients, the cycles in the
    area, the processes (AND THIS DOES NOT JUST MEAN THE REVENUE/COST
    PROCESSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!) involved in doing the work, the delays in
    ramping up, the ethics of that portion of the myriad of skills that
    make up the computer business. We think a manager can walk-in and
    immediately understand the business, the people. We think that we can
    move them around to anywhere; you cant. If this lack of consideration
    happens when managers are allocated to tasks, why wont it happen when
    those same managers need to allocate human resources to a project.
    
    regards,
    John

    
    		I heard a professional golfer describe his
    		feelings concerning professionals and amateurs.
    
    		According to him, both categories make the same
    		mistakes.  Professionals, however, know how to
    		get out of troubles or have more possible
    		solutions to try.

    re .15:
    
>    authority and mandate to blunder along.  Professionals below them will
>    be punished for critizing, pointing out mistakes, and trying to use
>    correct (as learned through experience) methods. 
    
>    Amatuers working with professionals find people who continuously
>    disgree with amatuer methods, point out their mistakes, and do
>    "professional" things that are not understood, or even considered
>    wasteful and wrong.   Amatuers often find professionals surley,
>    negitive, uncooperative, too quick to act, unconventional, bad team
>    players, and lucky.
    
    AMEN!

    
    	I agree with the theory professed in note .0.  If we had more
    people who know what they are doing, then we (DEC) might be not have to
    do so many things over.  You can't measure a mile with a ruler that
    lies.  If your information is not correct or complete enough to make an
    intelligent decision.  Get someone who can interpret the proper inputs
    to arrive at one.  
    
    	It never stops amazing me that the personal car at $15K gets
    maintenance at 3,000 mi intervals, but the $150K machine at the plant
    will be expected to go forever without any support.  I have seen
    equipment go for 10 years without any maintenance, even when the
    manufacturer states 6 month intervals.  One of the first places that
    is cut in a budget is maintenance costs.  The upper management who
    approve these cuts should have a working knowledge of what it really
    takes to make a GOOD product.  
    
    	I believe that if management really knew, we would not be at
    customer sites repairing "Brand New" systems, we could offer uptime
    of 1.5 years MTBF, instead of 90%...lets wake up folks, thats 10 days
    out of a hundred.  Would you buy a stereo from this man...I wouldn't.
    
    	I have seen many projects who go into high cost over-runs.  In
    virtually all cases, something had to be done over. In the ones that
    didn't, the project was cancelled.
    
    	I say, "DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME AND GET ON WITH WHAT'S NEXT!!!"
                                         

re: 1259.19                  Amateurism at Digital                     19 of 19
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please  bear with me while I attempt to educate myself again.

>    
>        I agree with the theory professed in note .0.  If we had more
>    people who know what they are doing, then we (DEC) might be not have to
>    do so many things over.  

This philospphy (if we had people who really know .) is widespread throughout
virtually every major company, in every discipline. Absolutely noone can guess
to what purpose every customer will use the product for. 

One of the current problems is this: When you make a device which is INTENDED
to be used in combination with any mix of 500 - 5,000 other products, each of 
which has a cominational transmutation of being used in 100,000 possible
ways .. it is virtually impossible to test every possibility to which a 
product may be used.

It is very likely that some combination exists, which just won't work.


>    will be expected to go forever without any support.  I have seen
>    equipment go for 10 years without any maintenance, even when the
>    manufacturer states 6 month intervals.  One of the first places that

This is so true that its a now a classical description of the "ultimate"
operability for a product.


>    customer sites repairing "Brand New" systems, we could offer uptime
>    of 1.5 years MTBF, instead of 90%...lets wake up folks, thats 10 days

According to some science report, the reason the US Aironautics Commisssion
(or whatver its name) will not permit fully automated airplane landings 
and takeoffs is because NOONE in the industry has been able to produce a 
Computer with 99.999% with a MTBF of ONE HOUR ..

One of the simplist devices in the world (as products go), which is my
home telephone service, has an uptime of under 23 hours a day, especially 
when it rains.

Computers, buy their nature, are slaves to the environment that are 
subjecte to,  and the power buses which supply them. At one DEC location
(a few years ago) a licensed Master Electrician crossed on Hot line with Neutral
and played havoc with the  systems. It was months before al the problems were
isolated and fixed. To anyone outside the "limited" few, it made it look like
the CPU was a real dog !


>        I have seen many projects who go into high cost over-runs.  In
>    virtually all cases, something had to be done over. In the ones that
>    didn't, the project was cancelled.
>    
>        I say, "DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME AND GET ON WITH WHAT'S NEXT!!!"

At what cost in time, money, materials, .. and who could afford it ?

A contrary views held by some managers is that DEC would be a lot more 
successful if their employees would stop playing in Notes !!

-Bob

    
    The views expressed in .0 seem very familiar. I have been wondering
    about some of these things for the past few months.
    
    It's too easy to become an instant "expert" at Digital, thereby
    promotimg amateurism. I've seen just too many examples of sales support
    people presenting products they don't know much about, after being
    introduced by sales people as "experts". I've done it myself, too,
    before realizing how "see-through" this behaviour must be for the
    customers... Once you've attended a course or even shown the slightest
    interest in a new product or technology - you're an "expert". Oh, and
    why admit anything else?? I've seen "experts" calling real experts to
    meetings to "exchange experiences" instead of humbly asking for the
    help they really need.  There are many examples, I don't know how to
    change this...
    

    I think that, in all fairness, it should be noted that many "instant
    experts are not particularly happy with the designation.  One of the
    real problems of becoming an "expert" is that it makes it almost
    impossible to get the training that _you_ know you need.  After all,
    how do you justify spending scarce training dollars on someone who
    already knows everything about the subject?
    
    -dave

    We'd like to think that there are tests put into place to filter out
    the amateurs from the experts.  But, the fact is that experts are
    designated.  They are usually those folks who are the only ones that
    can be assigned the tasks from a given group of people.  I've been in
    situations where I was designated the expert and didn't know much about
    the task at hand.  But, it was understood that my skill set was the
    best that could be found and that I was good at taking ill-defined
    problems, defining them and resolving them.  Customers don't have a
    problem with that if they understand what's going on.  But, I agree
    that there's a problem when the customer is not informed,
    misunderstands or is misled about the credentials of the talent brought in.
    
    Steve

    re 22.
    
    reminds me of the digital Finance manager we had once, (he since
    left) who signed up for an external training course called Finance for
    non-Financial Managers
    
    Lars