FAQ 39.04 Why bother defining levels of expertise?

Because it is important to set realistic targets for the transition plan.

In the early years of OO and C++, many organizations decided that they needed to develop expertise quickly, and many poor souls were "chosen" to become resident experts. They were given a book to read, subjected to an intensive two- or three-week training course and a few months of experience with a trivial project. These battlefield promotions did not work very well, and the organizations have suffered from having created anointed "experts" out of people who are actually at level 1 in their development. These organizations have a hard time developing legitimate skills at any level because their "top" people are clueless.

So the first task is to get the trainee to level 1 and to recognize that not everyone will make even this transition. The hard part is recognizing that everyone, no matter how experienced or talented, has to start off at the bottom rung. OO is radically different from functional decomposition and requires a "paradigm shift" that can be quite difficult for strong-willed people. C++, if used properly, is quite different than traditional C, even though it can be used as "a better C" (this latter approach does not deliver the promises of OO, however). Finally, object modeling is quite different than data modeling. People who were strong in the older technologies have significant emotional and intellectual hurdles to leap, and they should not be expected to immediately reach their previous level of expertise in the new technologies.

In our opinion, organizations should focus on getting people to level 1 through training, reading, and mentoring. With experience and additional mentoring, many of the level 1 people can eventually attain level 2. Anything beyond that is beyond the scope of this book and probably depends more on talent and attitude than on organizational process.