jim@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM (Jim Nicholsen) (04/17/91)
In an article referencing "Documenting OO Systems" Steve Savitzky wrote
"Perhaps we should start borrowing our terminology from the arts:
"producer" for the person who puts up the money and controls the
budget, "director" for the one with overall artistic control,
"designer" for the one who creates the look and feel of the project,
and "writer" for the ones doing the programming and technical writing
(hopefully mostly the same people"
This is the very idea I have begun to discuss (albeit unsuccessfully
thus far :->) in my organization. My idea came from Walt Disney who
transfered the titles from the movie industry that he understood, to
his "new" amusement park as it was built. His problem was to communicate
his expectations to the staff, and he found that he couldn't achieve
the level of communication he needed within the conventional amusement
park titles. (The preceding from a management seminar I attended from
the Walt Disney staff).
I can see that a similar problem existing within our industry. The title
"software engineer" was grabbed to add more prestige to those given the
title. The debate on-going in the professional organizations concerning
certification of those whoe wish to use the title has much more to do with
perserving prestige as it does with "improving" the level of expertise.
The problem, within firms whose product is software, is describing the
job that each person is to do (from owner to person who looks after the
building). Within our organization there are 'operators', 'programmers'
'system analysts', and 'managers'. operators dream of being programmers,
for programmers make more money, programmers dream of being system analysts
for system analysts make more money. And, of course, system analysts can
only move to management if they wish to improve their lot in life. The
preceding discriptions said nothing about the work that was performed, it
simply described a pecking order based on salary.
I submit, that once the names have been corrupted by linkage to salary
pecking order we will search for names to describe the work. The "software
engineer" title stems from that need to describe the work (and if it
means more salary, so much the better :->).
The arts terminology has much to offer in describing our organizations.
'Cast members' and "crew" in the arts can achieve aclaim within their own
field, they need not aspire to become directors and producers in order to
succeed. Indeed, there is more of an understanding in the arts community
that the job of producer and director are different from cast member, than
there is within the software community over the difference between (for
example) Vice-president, director, and project leader.
I open the floor for discussion. (i.e. asbestos suit is on :->)
Jim Nicholsen
Sterling IMD Inc
1404 Fort Crook Road South
Bellevue NE 68005-2969
voice (402) 291-8300
fax (402) 291-4362
email jim@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM
for system analysts make more money.theo.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Theo Heavey) (04/18/91)
jim@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM (Jim Nicholsen) writes: > This is the very idea I have begun to discuss (albeit unsuccessfully > thus far :->) in my organization. My idea came from Walt Disney who > transfered the titles from the movie industry that he understood, to > his "new" amusement park as it was built. His problem was to communicate > his expectations to the staff, and he found that he couldn't achieve > the level of communication he needed within the conventional amusement > park titles. (The preceding from a management seminar I attended from > the Walt Disney staff). > > I can see that a similar problem existing within our industry. The title > "software engineer" was grabbed to add more prestige to those given the > title. The debate on-going in the professional organizations concerning > certification of those whoe wish to use the title has much more to do with > perserving prestige as it does with "improving" the level of expertise. > > I submit, that once the names have been corrupted by linkage to salary > pecking order we will search for names to describe the work. The "software > engineer" title stems from that need to describe the work (and if it > means more salary, so much the better :->). > I agree --- the terminology in our area is sometime taken to the extreme. Unfortunately, titles will always be associated with money NOT just the underlying talent. Still worse is the fact that very rarely may a techie type flourish in the tech area. To clarify, a good techie (ie. programmer) can only go so far before maxing out the salary range. To move up (the standard American dream) to a higher level of income the techie must move into "management" --- too many GREAT programmers/sys analysts/other techies are in the realms of mid to upper mgt. It is unfortunate that those who are so talented are rewarded in this manner. I'll take that flame suit now please -------- Theo Heavey Florida Atlantic University theo@cs.fau.edu
dalamb@avi.umiacs.umd.edu (David Lamb) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr17.144402.16637@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> jim@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM (Jim Nicholsen) writes: >... The title >"software engineer" was grabbed to add more prestige to those given the >title. The debate on-going in the professional organizations concerning >certification of those whoe wish to use the title has much more to do with >perserving prestige as it does with "improving" the level of expertise. My, aren't we cynical (and I do mean "we"). I think at least a few of the people who coined the term "Software Engineering" (at the 1968 Nato conference, according to folklore) were holding it up as an ideal to aspire to. I've heard plenty of people say that the main activity of most professional organizations is to protect the privileges of their members. Is there some way we can separate out expressions of cynicism and despair from a discussion of what the profession ought to be like? >The problem, within firms whose product is software, is describing the >job that each person is to do (from owner to person who looks after the >building). This I can agree with. Metaphors I've heard are Movie industry (the article that started this thread?) Rhetoric (software as written communication) Programmer/S.Eng./Comp.Scientist as Technician/Electrical Engineer/Physicist (this one has been my favourite so far, but perhaps leads us too much into questions of prestige) Another observation that may not be too relevant, but struck me: the book publishing trade doesn't appear to have "managers". Instead everybody is an "editor" of some kind. I imagine they do much the sort of thing that managers everywhere do, but at least the title focuses on the job of getting books out, instead of some kind of generic "management" divorced from what's being managed. -- David Alex Lamb internet: dalamb@umiacs.umd.edu
cml@tove.cs.umd.edu (Christopher Lott) (04/18/91)
In article <Js1k11w163w@shark.cs.fau.edu> theo.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Theo Heavey) writes: >Still worse is the fact that very rarely may a techie type flourish >in the tech area. To clarify, a good techie (ie. programmer) can only >go so far before maxing out the salary range. To move up (the standard >American dream) to a higher level of income the techie must move into >"management" If I remember correctly from my brief time at IBM, they have a dual career track. Good technical people can become senior then more senior (forgot the catchy titles) tech people without assuming managerial duties. I assume (but don't know) that the salaries were comparable. Anyone else out there work for a place with this dual track? Is this common? chris... -- Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 cml@cs.umd.edu /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg 301 405-2721 <standard disclaimers>
skrone@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (stuart.krone) (04/18/91)
In article <33186@mimsy.umd.edu> cml@tove.cs.umd.edu (Christopher Lott) writes: >In article <Js1k11w163w@shark.cs.fau.edu> theo.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Theo Heavey) writes: >>Still worse is the fact that very rarely may a techie type flourish >>in the tech area. To clarify, a good techie (ie. programmer) can only >>go so far before maxing out the salary range. To move up (the standard >>American dream) to a higher level of income the techie must move into >>"management" > > >If I remember correctly from my brief time at IBM, they have a dual >career track. Good technical people can become senior then more senior >(forgot the catchy titles) tech people without assuming managerial duties. >I assume (but don't know) that the salaries were comparable. Anyone else >out there work for a place with this dual track? Is this common? > Yes. AT&T has a dual track. It takes longer to climb the tech track and there is a limit on how high you can go but at least you don't have to become administrative if you don't want to. >chris... >-- >Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 > cml@cs.umd.edu /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg 301 405-2721 <standard disclaimers> *************************************************** These opinions are mine and do not reflect the policys of AT&T or anyu other organization real or fictional. ***************************************************
koehnema@ENUXHA.EAS.ASU.EDU (Harry Koehnemann) (04/18/91)
In article <Js1k11w163w@shark.cs.fau.edu> theo.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Theo Heavey) writes: > >To move up to a higher level of income the techie must move into >"management" --- too many GREAT programmers/sys analysts/other techies >are in the realms of mid to upper mgt. It is unfortunate that those who >are so talented are rewarded in this manner. It is probably also unfortunate for those they have to manage. |:=) Harry Koehnemann koehnema@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
cole@farmhand.rtp.dg.com (Bill Cole) (04/19/91)
|>Theo Heavey writes: |> >Still worse is the fact that very rarely may a techie type flourish |> >in the tech area. To clarify, a good techie (ie. programmer) can only |> >go so far before maxing out the salary range. To move up (the standard |> >American dream) to a higher level of income the techie must move into |> >"management" |> |>Christopher Lott replies: |> If I remember correctly from my brief time at IBM, they have a dual |> career track. Good technical people can become senior then more senior |> (forgot the catchy titles) tech people without assuming managerial duties. |> I assume (but don't know) that the salaries were comparable. Anyone else |> out there work for a place with this dual track? Is this common? |> |> You're both right. The Software Engineer in a 'user' environment (i.e., someone who works for an end-user of computing services such as a bank or insurance company or a steel company) is considered a useful tool -- almost like the machine but more interchangeable with other programmers who might work more cheaply. In this environment, a programmer has two choices: become a 'systems programmer', thereby linking yourself inextricably to IBM; or move into management. In the world of computing services builders (such as software companies or hardware manufacturers/integrators), we've cleverly built two tracks -- one for managers and one for the folks who clearly are happy doing technical things. That's why I choose to work for a vendor. I have swapped from individual contributor to manager to individual contributor to manager. The point is that it's my choice to be one or the other and continue on that particular career track; I'm not particularly penalized or rewarded for making the decision. /Bill
hamm@austoto.sps.mot.com (Steve Hamm) (04/19/91)
-----On 18 Apr 91 13:19:23 GMT, cml@tove.cs.umd.edu (Christopher Lott) said:
CL> If I remember correctly from my brief time at IBM, they have a
CL> dual career track. Good technical people can become senior then
CL> more senior (forgot the catchy titles) tech people without
CL> assuming managerial duties. I assume (but don't know) that the
CL> salaries were comparable. Anyone else out there work for a place
CL> with this dual track? Is this common?
Motorola has a technical ladder as well as managerial. IMHO,
progressing in it is almost as political as managerial promotion, and
it is highly oriented toward hardware design engineering (with lots of
weight on patents), but it functions quite a bit better than supposed
equivalents at other places I've worked.
As to how common it is, it depends. Small companies tend not to need
it, since visibility (and appropriate recognition/rewards for the
better technical people) is less of a problem. Large companies tend,
I think, to have these programs in place because they KNOW they have
an opportunity (aka problem) in this area. Medium sized companies
(say, 100 -> 1000 employees) are likely to be really variable.
(Personal experience.) In a medium sized techie company, the founders
and initial employees could form a club, and make it REAL difficult
for high-performing latecomers to join. Sometimes it happens,
sometimes not. It's part of the graceful-transition-from-startup-
to-larger-company problem, and sometimes it isn't graceful at all.
Just my opinions.
--Steve
--
Steve Hamm ------- Motorola Inc. Semiconductor Systems Design Technology
3501 Ed Bluestein Blvd., MD-M2, Austin TX 78762
Ph: (512) 928-6612 Internet: hamm@austoto.sps.mot.com
Fax:(512) 928-7662 UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!austoto!hammalan@tivoli.UUCP (Alan R. Weiss) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr17.144402.16637@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> jim@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM (Jim Nicholsen) writes: >In an article referencing "Documenting OO Systems" Steve Savitzky wrote > > "Perhaps we should start borrowing our terminology from the arts: > "producer" for the person who puts up the money and controls the > budget, "director" for the one with overall artistic control, > "designer" for the one who creates the look and feel of the project, > and "writer" for the ones doing the programming and technical writing > (hopefully mostly the same people" > >This is the very idea I have begun to discuss (albeit unsuccessfully >thus far :->) in my organization. My idea came from Walt Disney who >transfered the titles from the movie industry that he understood, to >his "new" amusement park as it was built. His problem was to communicate >his expectations to the staff, and he found that he couldn't achieve >the level of communication he needed within the conventional amusement >park titles. (The preceding from a management seminar I attended from >the Walt Disney staff). No no, this is actually a VERY good idea to explore, and in fact is being attempted at two places (that I know of): American Interactive Media, and a firm up in Silicon Valley that, due to Non-disclosures, I can't, well, disclose :-} AIM does software for CD-I, the interactive version of CD laser tech. sponsored by Sony, Polygram, and Philips. Their software products are mostly games and educational programs, and since their backing is from the entertainment industry they naturally gravitated towards what I call the Hollywood Model (c). They have a Producer (the Finance guy, usually), the Director (the Development or Project Manager), the Writers (software developers), and the Artists/Graphics people (which would, I suppose, correspond to GUI programmers and designers). Where they fall flat on their face is in QA and Testing. For testing, they just hire a bunch of college kids to come and play with the games, which is appealing from a budgetary and customer feedback perspective is surely different from an engineering discipline. In short, they have no Continuity Director :-) >"software engineer" was grabbed to add more prestige to those given the >title. The debate on-going in the professional organizations concerning >certification of those whoe wish to use the title has much more to do with >perserving prestige as it does with "improving" the level of expertise. In your humble opinion, no doubt. IMHO, the term "software engineer" was both a sign of hope (that programmers would live up to the term) and an acknowledgement of the increasing complexity of interrelated software components requiring more engineering skill sets. >The problem, within firms whose product is software, is describing the >job that each person is to do (from owner to person who looks after the >building). Within our organization there are 'operators', 'programmers' >'system analysts', and 'managers'. operators dream of being programmers, >for programmers make more money, programmers dream of being system analysts >for system analysts make more money. And, of course, system analysts can >only move to management if they wish to improve their lot in life. The >preceding discriptions said nothing about the work that was performed, it >simply described a pecking order based on salary. This is dull. It also is most likely true for a LARGE percentage of software development firms. Haven't they ever heard of the dual career ladder? Of reward based upon % contribution? Believe you me, we have people here who would kill NOT to become a manager. >The arts terminology has much to offer in describing our organizations. Yes, and I believe that the Hollywood Model should be pursued. As Tom Peters has said, "try it, break it, fix, repeat." Organizations` should be free to experiment, SO LONG AS THEIR STAFFS ARE NOT THREATENED AND YOU GET BUY-IN. >Jim Nicholsen >Sterling IMD Inc >1404 Fort Crook Road South >Bellevue NE 68005-2969 > >voice (402) 291-8300 >fax (402) 291-4362 >email jim@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM > _______________________________________________________________________ Alan R. Weiss TIVOLI Systems, Inc. E-mail: alan@tivoli.com 6034 West Courtyard Drive, E-mail: alan@whitney.tivoli.com Suite 210 Voice : (512) 794-9070 Austin, Texas USA 78730 Fax : (512) 794-0623 "Hell, I can barely speak for myself." _______________________________________________________________________
dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) (04/20/91)
In article <1991Apr17.144402.16637@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM>, jim@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM (Jim Nicholsen) writes: >In an article referencing "Documenting OO Systems" Steve Savitzky wrote "Perhaps we should start borrowing our terminology from the arts: "producer" for the person who puts up the money and controls the budget, "director" for the one with overall artistic control, "designer" for the one who creates the look and feel of the project, and "writer" for the ones doing the programming and technical writing (hopefully mostly the same people" >This is the very idea I have begun to discuss (albeit unsuccessfully >thus far :->) in my organization. My idea came from Walt Disney who >transfered the titles from the movie industry that he understood, to >his "new" amusement park as it was built. His problem was to communicate >his expectations to the staff, and he found that he couldn't achieve >the level of communication he needed within the conventional amusement >park titles. (The preceding from a management seminar I attended from >the Walt Disney staff). [Other portions deleted] >I open the floor for discussion. (i.e. asbestos suit is on :->) Actually I heard Ted Nelson (of Hypertext, Xanadu, Dream Machines, etc) first propose this idea at a seminar/consulting gig we had him give to us while some of us now at Atherton were working for Hewlett Packard. Not only that, his point was that in the early days of filmmaking the cameraman was supreme and the main focus of films was JUST pointing a camera a scene and letting it run. It wasn't till DIRECTORS came on the scene that movie making evolved into what is is today. The cameraman was just into the "technical side" of film making and did not "FOCUS" (pardon the pun, but how appropriate) on what he was shooting and how to involve his customer (the audience) with what he was showing them (I would have included, what he was "trying to get across, but early cinema was not that advanced). Now map the Software Engineer in the role of cameraman (knows how to work the "equipment of the trade", but should this person be designing the piece?). Some rare individual "engineers" actually evolve into Directors or scriptwriters, but most just like bit twiddling for bit twiddlings sake. Ted showed the opening sequence to some of the Disney films and showed the micro planning involved in the films "User Interface" that actually draws the audience INTO the story being told. It is sometimes very subtle, but once you realize what filmakers and cinematographers today now do you realize just how powerful their techniques are. His point was to show how another industry conceives, plans and designs their User Interface and how the software industry might do the same if they were smart [and it was his contention that Arcade Video Game designeers knew how to do this....visit a local arcade...note that you actually pay money to try out the product and continually feed it money to use it if you find it interesting to use and notice the SIZE and content of the USER MANUAL <generally a paragraph on the outside of the unit>. So mapping the metaphor of the Film industry onto the Software industry might yield some very easy to use and enjoyable products that are also productive. David --------------------------------------------------------------------- #define flame_sheild "I know you are, but what am I?" --------------------------------------------------------------------- David Williams -- dlw@atherton.com -- (408) 734-9822 x291 Atherton Technology -- The CASE Repository/IPSE 1333 Bordeaux Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94089 AIX,SunOS,Ultrix,VMS *
straub@jogger.cs.umd.edu (Pablo A. Straub) (04/20/91)
In article <684@tivoli.UUCP> alan@tivoli.UUCP (Alan R. Weiss) writes: > [...] > No no, this [borrowing terminology from the entertainment industry] is > actually a VERY good idea to explore. > > AIM does software for CD-I, the interactive version of CD laser tech. > sponsored by Sony, Polygram, and Philips. Their software products are > mostly games and educational programs, and since their backing is from > the entertainment industry they naturally gravitated towards what I > call the Hollywood Model (c). They have a Producer (the Finance guy, > usually), the Director (the Development or Project Manager), the > Writers (software developers), and the Artists/Graphics people (which > would, I suppose, correspond to GUI programmers and designers). This may be a great idea in an organization that develops games and educational programs, for after all the end product is like that in the entertainment industry. Software that will be used directly by many people (e.g., a spreadsheet for a microcomputer) might probably fit this mold too. Attempting to generalize this scheme to all other software products (e.g., custom software, engineering software) is at least naive and at worst irresponsible. > IMHO, the term "software engineer" was both a sign of hope (that > programmers would live up to the term) and an acknowledgement of the > increasing complexity of interrelated software components requiring > more engineering skill sets. Agree. > As Tom Peters has said, "try it, break it, fix, repeat." Organizations > should be free to experiment, SO LONG AS THEIR STAFFS ARE NOT > THREATENED AND YOU GET BUY-IN. But an engineering approach to experimentation must be guided by the organizations' goals, not just the curiosity of individual staff members. Pablo A. Straub straub@cs.umd.edu
lfd@cbnewsm.att.com (Lee Derbenwick) (04/22/91)
In article <33186@mimsy.umd.edu>, cml@tove.cs.umd.edu (Christopher Lott) writes: > If I remember correctly from my brief time at IBM, they have a dual > career track. Good technical people can become senior then more senior > (forgot the catchy titles) tech people without assuming managerial duties. > I assume (but don't know) that the salaries were comparable. Anyone else > out there work for a place with this dual track? Is this common? AT&T, in Bell Labs and related R&D areas, has a slightly different twist to this. Traditionally, one title ("Member Technical Staff" or "MTS") was used for all technical people from new hires with shiny new Masters' degrees through PhD's with 40 years experience in the company. There was no stigma attached to remaining a non-manager MTS for your entire career. (Indeed, while there were indeed perks, a salary increment, etc., for becoming a manager, managers were _not_ willing to give up the MTS title. Thus, Ian Ross is an MTS who happens to be President of Bell Labs.) In recent years, the MTS category has been subdivided slightly into MTS-I ("MTS One" as the entry level), MTS, and DMTS ("Distinguished MTS"). So it's somewhere between a technical ladder and the old MTS concept. (MTS-I also functions as a bridge between the "Associate Technical Staff" levels and full technical staff, a gap that used to be almost impossible to get over. IMHO, this improved career path for people who happened to join the company without an MS is the one good thing that's come out of the subdivision.) I've also worked at a couple companies with "dual ladders". In both cases, the dual ladder was somewhat of a farce, since _both_ sides were actually management. The "management" ladder involved managing people (e.g., salary review) and overall budgets, etc. The "technical" ladder involved managing projects. You can't do much personal technical work if your job involves directing the work of 10 or 20 or 50 other technical people (depending on your spot on the ladder), even if you aren't officially their "manager". I've heard of a company near Penn State (a post-WW II spinoff?) that addressed this problem via a _TRIPLE_ ladder: people management, project management, and technical. Seems to make sense to me, but does anybody have any real info on how it works? Has anyone else tried it or anything similar? -- Speaking strictly for myself, -- Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ -- lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM or <wherever>!att!cbnewsm!lfd
georgerj@motcid.UUCP (Richard J. George) (04/23/91)
lfd@cbnewsm.att.com (Lee Derbenwick) writes: >In article <33186@mimsy.umd.edu>, cml@tove.cs.umd.edu (Christopher Lott) writes: >> If I remember correctly from my brief time at IBM, they have a dual >> career track. Good technical people can become senior then more senior >> (forgot the catchy titles) tech people without assuming managerial duties. >> I assume (but don't know) that the salaries were comparable. Anyone else >> out there work for a place with this dual track? Is this common? Motorola (US) has a dual structure. Motorola (UK) would like one but don't appear to have one yet. RJG ------------------------------------------------------------------------- No-one listens, so why should I speak for anyone?
alan@tivoli.UUCP (Alan R. Weiss) (04/24/91)
In article <33297@mimsy.umd.edu> straub@cs.umd.edu (Pablo A. Straub) writes: >In article <684@tivoli.UUCP> alan@tivoli.UUCP (Alan R. Weiss) writes: >> [...] [Regarding the Hollywood Model of Software Development (tm)]: >This may be a great idea in an organization that develops games and >educational programs, for after all the end product is like that in the >entertainment industry. Software that will be used directly by many >people (e.g., a spreadsheet for a microcomputer) might probably fit this >mold too. Attempting to generalize this scheme to all other software >products (e.g., custom software, engineering software) is at least naive >and at worst irresponsible. Gee, its nice to see me called irresponsible for a change. Most people who know me (and have read my prior postings) would call me SUPER-responsible. I am advocating research into this approach, and tolerance for controlled experimentation. You must be new to this newsgroup, Pablo. >> As Tom Peters has said, "try it, break it, fix, repeat." Organizations >> should be free to experiment, SO LONG AS THEIR STAFFS ARE NOT >> THREATENED AND YOU GET BUY-IN. > >But an engineering approach to experimentation must be guided by the >organizations' goals, not just the curiosity of individual staff >members. > > >Pablo A. Straub >straub@cs.umd.edu I partially agree: there should be goals in mind, both organizationally and personally. But to ignore curiosity is a devastating mistake. You MUST encourage curiosity: in the entire history of scientific and engineering breakthroughs, its usually been a megalomaniac on a mission [grins!] who makes the breakthrough, along with LOTS of contributors to polish, refine, and improve the technology. NOT XOR, but rather AND! I encourage well-intentioned risk-taking, and reward for learning from honest mistakes. I didn't ALWAYS do this :-), but we all learn. I refer you to "PeopleWare", by Tony DeMarco, and "Mythical Man Month", by Frederick Brooks. _______________________________________________________________________ Alan R. Weiss TIVOLI Systems, Inc. E-mail: alan@tivoli.com 6034 West Courtyard Drive, E-mail: alan@whitney.tivoli.com Suite 210 Voice : (512) 794-9070 Austin, Texas USA 78730 Fax : (512) 794-0623 _______________________________________________________________________
wdr@wang.com (William Ricker) (04/30/91)
>> cml@tove.cs.umd.edu (Christopher Lott) writes: >>> If I remember correctly from my brief time at IBM, they have a dual >>> career track. Good technical people can become senior then more senior >>> (forgot the catchy titles) tech people without assuming managerial duties. >>> I assume (but don't know) that the salaries were comparable. Anyone else >>> out there work for a place with this dual track? Is this common? Yes, IBM has a wide range of individual-contributor levels, including the "Fellow of IBM" level, which as I understand it is an appointment for life and getting a personal budget from a senior VP. I believe it was Backus, inventor of Fortran etc, whom I met with such. The MITRE Corp. officially has a technical ladder as well as a management ladder, but the rungs are further apart with space for fewer people on each rung. And in too many portions of the organization it's treated as a holding place for burned out managers. Here at Wang Labs, there are technical titles ranging fairly high, with no apparent requirement to manage to be promoted. It does help to have a patron manager whose personal staff you are on, however, if you want to completely avoid even team-leadership. I know one engineer who is staff with glorious title & perqs to an Executive VP, and has not to my knowledge ever managed anyone. I know someone else, now staff to a Director/virt.VP, who when made a dept.head, hired an assistant, created a new "staff" title, Promoted his "assistant" to be his boss, and then had himself transferred into this new staff slot -- thus setting a precedent for the rest of us, who can now aspire to be staff to dept.heads and above. (His quote: "I've never had a boss whose job I wanted.") My boss is nominally a department head for four researchers, but in reality we're a collective of staff of whom he's senior guide. He has to appear to have management responsibility on the org chart, but I believe his title is still a "staff" as opposed to line title -- although he has his own staff and appears on the org chart next to a department. He's the first boss I've had whose job I'd want! Bell Labs solved the problem by having only one title for professional staff. The bosses paid whatever it took to keep the folks worth keeping. I don't believe the bosses were forbidden to pay more than their own salaries? -- /s/ Bill Ricker wdr@wang.wang.com "The Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one." *** Warning: This account is not authorized to express opinions. ***