A Title To Replace "Systems Administrator"? 709
sjanich writes "A discussion has begun at SAGE on an updated title to replace "Systems Administrator". I figure more sysadmins are reading Slashdot than are reading SAGEwire. Rob Kolstad of SAGE wrote: 'What in the world do we call the collective group of those people who make computers work properly? I'm not talking about users, and I'm not talking about software developers. I am thinking of: system administrators, LAN administrators, network administrators (both kinds!), security administrators, e-mail administrators, desktop support groups, database administrators, and all the other kinds of support that keep the IT function of an institution running -- what is this huge group called?' My favorite options are "Computer Infrastructure Practitioner" or "Computer Infrastructure Specialist". The original discussion can be found here at SAGEwire."
Joke (Score:1, Insightful)
What's wrong with the status quo? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why replace useful titles with some generic contrived name?
In addition too not instead of? (Score:5, Insightful)
some of the things he mentioned like a Salary Survey would still
want to get a specific title. The reason for this is the
differences in salaries between a Database Administrator and an
E-mail Administrator can be vast.
Maybe if we look to the medical field we can get some insight.
They have the term "General Practitioner" or "Family Doctor" as
a broad term that applies to many things. However the
specialist terms such as "Cardiologist", "Neuro-Surgeon",
"Ortho-pedic" still apply. So in that sense the title conveys
some very useful information. You definitely want to know if
you are hiring a Cardiologist or a General Practicioner for that
open heart surgery.
In that vein I would be in favor of adding terms along these
lines:
System Generalist
Computer System Generalist
Server Generalist
Perhaps you could break it down by category, this would still
offer a more generic, but allow for some categorization:
Software Generalist Hardware Generalist
Pointless banter (Score:5, Insightful)
Common usage (Score:5, Insightful)
We call them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Highly desirable employees.
My Suggestion is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick of all this puffery like domestic engineer (housewife), sanitation technician (garbageman), administrative assistant (secretary).
According to dictionary.com a system is "A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole." Sounds pretty accurate and all-encompasing to me.
If you can't be proud of the work you do without changing its name you have a lot bigger problems than your job title.
My experience (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had many titles over that period of time, and they include:
Computer Operator
LAN Administrator
Systems Administrator
Systems Analyst
Computer Technician
Network Analyst
Web Developer
and finally,
Network Administrator
The latter is my current title, though they're about to slap and additional one (Web Developer) on there as well. I have no problems with that, though regardless of my Network Admin/Web Dev status, I will still be called out to fix a printer, or switch out RAM, or go through old RS/6000 logs looking for some stray error message.
I've worked all of my sys admin jobs at financial institutions. I've worked for both banks and credit unions (credit unions have the edge, in my experience), in groups large and small. The largest group was about 8 guys, the smallest just me and my boss. They both have their problems. But that's not what this discussion is about.
This discussions is about how to label a guy who can't really have a label. Technician is so vague that it doesn't carry merit. Specialist too suffers from the same thing. Stick "Computer" in front of them, and you still have the vagarities that reek of any title that a job may provide you with.
Most places, unless they're Conglomerates (and all that that implies), want you to go above and beyond. This means that sometimes titles are left by the wayside as you throw a box in your car and hightail it to a destination, ready to provide that quick fix.
This discussion is moot and pointless in my opinion. Network Administrators and System Administrators will, in small shops, most likely be doing each others job at least part of the time.
No title is infallible, no title can encompass everything that you do or provide. Do not look for one to do so, because it does not, and can not, exist.
Titles are not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Programmer - codes programs
System Administrator - Reboots computers. Called when mail not working or I cannot open Outlook or the network is down.
etc.
Rather than look for a new name, they should be working on describing a lists of talents, duties, and capabilities that define a system administrator. This should be augmented with a level of competence to allow for Junior Systems Administrator, Systems Administrator, Senior Systems Administrator, and finally Master Systems Administrator.
It probably also needs two paths. One Unix/Linux and one Windows. You could probably even make an argument for splitting Unix/Linux if you wish.
I have taken this approach internally and it has smoothed things greatly. Now when I speak with HR, and tell them I am looking for a Systems Admin they know what criteria they need to look for. A global standard would only make it that much easier for everyone.
Never something with "manager" in the title (Score:4, Insightful)
Forget it (Score:5, Insightful)
How about variations of Geek? (Score:3, Insightful)
Networking geek
Web geek
Code geek
Server geek
etc.
For instance, I'm a Physician, or Doctor... and I typically go by that simple title (if I tell people what I do at all... often I don't want them knowing what I do for a living). I also go by my first name, last name, or whatever somebody wants to call me... I even answer to "Hey you!"
Now, some specialists are doctors, but prefer to be referred to by specialty: Neurosurgeon, Gastroenterologist, Colo-rectal surgeon, pediatrician, etc, etc... something to set them apart from other types of physicians. I can understand that sentiment, and wanting to be recognized for having done a longer residency. Personally, my specialty (emergency medicine) is much more blue coller... most guys are simply not into titles.
If techies want to subdivide themselves in their profession, I'd say that's fine... doctors do it, why not geeks? On the other hand, I can also understand those who simply don't care about a title... after all, it's whether you can do the job that really matters.
I never much cared for titles myself; I've at times seen them become a smokescreen for simple pretentiousness. I have far more respect for an individual who knows his limitations, rather than the one who's full of braggadocio. Give me a humble man any day.
That is not to say that titles are wrong; they are not. I just think sometimes people take it too far.
I am known... (Score:3, Insightful)
My full title is "He who must remain nameless."
I am cherished, yet feared. For why else can no one think of my name? Pass them in the hall, its "Hey, er...". I am a part of every project, but always left out of the credits.
My role is so integral to the operation of the building that it is simply assumed.
And that's what I keep telling myself to keep from going crazy.
Re:What's wrong with the status quo? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like computer types are starting to identify themselves as a disenfranchised group. One of the tactics used by those groups of people who see themselves as powerless is to change their name.
Old folks --> Senior Citizens
Garbageman --> Sanitation Worker
Hooker --> Sex Worker
Mechanic --> Technician
And lets not forget the double play
Negro --> Black --> African American
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Re:Descriptive (Score:1, Insightful)
in senior/team lead positions for several years now. Trust me, electronic
janitor is pretty darned accurate.
The chief difference is that I rarely have to plunge out toilets, and
that few janitors I know are on 24/7 call. Manual labour? Yup. Dirty
manual labour? Yes, often. Problem solving? Standard part of the job.
I'm actually rather annoyed that my first post was marked funny. You might
find it funny, but I'm serious. It's not glamorous, it's not elegant and
it doesn't entail going home when other people do. The only fringe benefit
I am likely to get is a nice thankyou when things run more or less well.
Re:Sick of it... (Score:2, Insightful)
And its so easy to post as an Anonymous Coward, isn't it ?
My Two bits
Re:Um... (Score:1, Insightful)
Titles (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always preferred "admin" myself since it carries the correct ring of authority, but still stops at classifying the holder as a complete expert. The problem is that a lot of suits don't like it because they feel it's their term. I remember once proposing to a former employer that they change my title from "Technology Specialist" to "Network Admin" since that's what I really was. they balked at that. But about a year later, the employer conceded that it was a legitimate title and more fitting of what I did. Their hesitance seemed to have to do with the fact that they felt that the word "Administration" applied to the suites on the top floor and not with the grunts on the ground floor. (Or in the basement as was my case at the time)
On the other hand, some other titles that might fit are:
-IT Manager (as in, the manager of the information technology used by others)
-Digital Information Stylist (tongue in cheek here folks)
-AEtherlord (OK... now I'm going way over the top)
One particular title I can't STAND is "Knowledge Manager". These guys are typically suits who wish they knew about technology but are really an obstruction standing between the computers and the people who know how to ue them. It's sad because Knowledge Management really DOES have a real purpose, but it's been co-opted by the middle managers who want to "orchestrate" things they don't understand. (And schmooze and play golf three days of every work week)
Just my $.02
Administrator, bleh. (Score:3, Insightful)
I do have to confess I really detest that word. When I see "Administrator" I think button-pusher and tape-changer. In companies with larger IT shops I've found the more senior techies get titles that end in "Engineer". The "Engineer" moniker suggests that you are involved in designing infrastructure, not just care and feeding.
I used to be a "Senior Server Engineer", but since I'm at a start-up now I've been busted down to a mere "System Administrator"
As far as a more generic title for the group of IT folks, I'd suggest "Operations Engineers", or perhaps "Information Operations Engineers" if you need to be more specific. Of course, if you're absolutely allergic to "Engineer" you can always go with "Administrator". Bleh.
Sarah
Good Lord! (Score:3, Insightful)
Calling it an "uncontrolled descent into terrain" doesn't stop it being a flippin' plane crash!
I may want, in some of my darker delusions of grandeur, to be a "information systems architecture specialist," but what I am is a programmer.
"Systems administrator" is a perfectly clear, lucid, and honorable title. "Lord Emperor of the Packets" will just have to wait.
For the love of Pete, already! Get over yourself!
Re: What to call System Administrators (Score:2, Insightful)
Tux
Re:How about variations of Geek? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh yeah, and you just had to do it, didn't you?How long til all the goatse trolls attack this thread? =)