Haha, it’s not written like that but it’s in there 
3 Likes
I think you make a great point here on a meta level, that specialisation can be special to the domain you’re working in.
Testing hardware, and especially embedded systems is for sure a niche that wouldn’t automatically come easily to me as a generalised software tester. I’m sure I’d be able to use transferable skills, but I’d expect a steep learning curve.
I’m very glad you’ve found your bag in your current role. 
2 Likes
As for the shapes mentioned above, I like the V-shaped approach. It is also called versatilist and it is somewhere between specialist and generalist. It is described quite well here.
It fits best with the way I work. If you understand a generalist as someone who never goes into depth, then it doesn’t fit me because I like to go into depth and I like to be passionate about an area. But then in a moment I am able to change that and get involved in something else.
It may just be a play on words, because I think that no one is at one extreme or the other, no one is a complete generalist or specialist, and everyone is somewhere in between. But if you had to put me in a box, it would be “versatilist” 
6 Likes
I like having broad knowledge as it allows me to point out areas we are not discussing or covering.
I called it a broken comb, different levels of knowledge so the tines are different lengths.
2 Likes
I tbink this it has been mentioned already but follow your passion. If you lobe building out automation do that if you love all apsects of testing then generalist is for you.
I see organisations needed a mix of both to emsire qualtiy and coverage.
1 Like
I think the article is based on personal ideas and values of the author, which are being presented as objectively true.
These seem to be:
- you can only be happy and succeed as a specialist
- specialist surgeons are more valuable (and therefore specialists are generally more valuable)
(based on money - insert rant about valuable vs. valued)
Comments in this thread show people can be happy and successful outside of a niche. Additionally, knowledge isn’t as binary as presented, complex topics seldomly are.
Personally, I’m happy and successful with my comb-shaped knowledge (thanks @kristof for sharing the concept). What I love about testing is the variety. I would be bored as a specialist.
The whole article focuses a lot on the “dangers” of full-stack testing. I would have liked a real comparison between generalist and specialist. Using specialists can lead to not having enough of them and certain aspects not being covered in a product. We had 2 performance testers for the whole company. Only the most important projects had a chance to get their support.
4 Likes
Thank you for summing up nicely what was irritating me about the original article! I totally accept that for the author, in their region in their context, there maybe a real dangor in the way companies want to hire “cheap” full stack testers that are undervalued. But it isn’t universally a truth that we all share.
3 Likes