

Your company has a knowledge debt problem - nathanmarz
http://nathanmarz.com/blog/knowledge-debt/

======
gjm11
The author fails to distinguish between a _debt_ (which you incur by spending
what you don't have) and a mere _lack_. I don't think it's appropriate to call
it "knowledge debt" when you're merely ignorant of some potentially useful
technology.

The actual point of the article is simply this: It's good to know stuff, but
hard to learn stuff and tempting just to continue using what you're used to;
if you do that, you run the risk of remaining ignorant of something useful.
Absolutely correct, of course, but why call that situation "debt"?

The author's drawing an analogy with Ward Cunningham's metaphor of "technical
debt", which you incur when you deliberately do something quick-and-dirty and
cause yourself pain later on. That really is an instance of debt: when you
incur technical debt, you truly are making something worse in the longer run
for short-term gain. But (e.g.) writing something with Java and MySQL, which
you happen to be familiar with, rather than taking the opportunity to learn a
new technology, is not incurring any sort of debt unless the Java/MySQL
solution is actually inferior.

It might still be a dumb move for exactly the reasons the author gives. It's
just the choice of metaphor I'm objecting to.

~~~
j_baker
I suppose you could think of it as an opportunity cost debt. If you don't take
the best opportunities, you'll end up paying for them later (and then some).

------
jtbigwoo
This is really just replacing one type of "debt" with another. It's true that
if I do all my work with one toolset, I'm likely to end up not using the very
latest and best tools to solve problems. However, if I regularly use different
toolsets, I'm going to end up with a costly cornucopia of applications. For a
medium-sized or smaller company, the choice to add another toolset should not
be taken lightly.

~~~
j_baker
I think it's _easier_ for smaller companies to make these kinds of changes. In
big companies, there are always multiple levels of management that must be
consulted to make a decision.

------
tjmaxal
This reminds me of another article I read about "just in time" learning VS
"Just in case" learning. The first is the kind of on the job training we all
do to get up to speed on projects etc. The second is academic or recreational
learning, that is learning without an immediate application in mind.

The author seems to think that one kind of learning is more valuable than the
other. This is not the case. All jobs require a certain degree of "just in
time" learning and almost all "just in case" learning can be done in a "just
in time" manner.

The real question for employers should not be what kind of knowledge does this
person have but rather am I willing to pay for this person to learn what they
need to to do this job.

