A ‘like’ on this today (from Andy Bardoza) helped me find this thread again!
The original post is about a job description that was asking for 5 years Power Apps experience. Of course, the brand name ‘Power Apps’ is recent and technically there won’t be anyone with that long experience with it. Hence the post by John MacDougal. Agreed, at first sight it looks funny.
However, there’s a serious side to this.
The technology behind Power Apps it is not new. At Microsoft it goes back to over 10 years. I know that because when I was learning more than 10 years ago, my colleague at my clients’ (John Arthur) had just come from the project team that worked with SQL Server Analysis Services at Microsoft (you’ll see his name in the sample data!), and he was telling me about the development going on for implementing some of the functionality within the Office products. The Power stuff in Excel is part of the result.
So, in that LinkedIn discussion thread, I compared this with ‘being a master carpenter’ who can build a shelf, a chair, a boat – to someone who can assemble an IKEA flatpack bookshelf (KALLAX) from the instructions. Is the Job Description looking for a master carpenter, or someone who can assemble furniture from IKEA?
There’s big difference between the skill required to (1) design a product like the KALLAX bookshelf and setting up the production process for it, and (2) assembling one bought at IKEA at home.
Now, I’m not trying to defend the recruitment industry. Indeed, I have a history of writing about the mis-match between candidates and client-needs, and the limitations of the ‘keyword’ culture we have in recruitment. (so much so I created an evaluation for companies to use. See my Celebrity Chef Spreadsheet Challenge – results of). The point is the premise that a ‘new’ brand name, for a product or feature (now aimed at a different market) makes it a new kind of expertise, when the underlying skill/mastery already existed from a long time ago.
This blog comes hot on the heels of one I wrote this morning on the ‘new’ LET feature in formulas. In a similar vein.
I may be duplicating a previous blog from a few months ago. But the link to the LinkedIn discussion above is relevant.