One thing I've seen a lot of lately is the “expert” myth being touted on LinkedIn and Twitter. Originating from psychologist K. Anders Ericsson who studied the way people become experts in their fields, and then discussed by Malcolm Gladwell in the book, “Outliers“, “to become an expert it takes 10,000 hours (or approximately 10 years) of deliberate practice”. This paradigm (if you can indeed call it that) has been adopted by several so called “experts” - mostly those within the Information Security and GDPR fields. This article isn't about GDPR (for once), but mostly those who consider themselves “experts” by virtue of the acronym. Prior to it's implementation, nobody should have proclaimed themselves a GDPR "expert". You cannot be an expert in something that wasn't actually legally binding until May 25 2018, nor can you have sufficient time invested to be an expert since inception in my view. GDPR is a vast universe, and you can't claim to know all of it.
Consultant ? Possibly, yes. Expert ? No.
The associated sales campaign isn't much better, and can be aligned to the children's book “Chicken Licken”. For those unfamiliar with this concept, here is a walkthrough. I'm sure you'll understand why I choose a children's story in this case, as it seems to fit the bill very well. What I've seen over the last 12 months had been nothing short of amazing - but not in the sense of outstanding. I could align GDPR here to the PPI claims furore - for anyone unfamiliar with what this “uprising” is, here's a synopsis.
The "expert" fallacy
Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) is the insurance sold alongside credit cards, loans and other finance agreements to ensure payments are made if the borrower is unable to make them due to sickness or unemployment. The PPI scandal has its roots set back as far as 1998, although compensatory payments did not officially start until 2011 once the review and court appeal process was completed. Since the deadline for PPI claims has been announced as August 2019, the campaign has become intensively aggressive, with, it would seem, thousands of PPI “experts”. Again, I would question the authenticity of such a title. It seems that everyone is doing it, therefore, it must be easy to attain (a bit like the CISSP then, which I get into here and here). I witnessed the same shark pool of so called “experts” before, back in the day when Y2K was the latest buzzword on everyone's lips. Years of aggressive selling campaigns and similarly, years of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - more effectively known as complete bulls…) caused an unprecedented spike that allowed companies and consultants (several of whom had never been heard of before) to suddenly appear out of the woodwork and assume the identity of “experts” in this field. In reality, it's not possible to be a subject matter expert in a particular field or niche market unless you have extensive experience. If you compare a weapons expert to a GDPR “expert”, you'll see just how weak this paradigm actually is. A weapons expert will have years of knowledge in a field, and could probably tell you which gun discharged a bullet just by looking at the expended shell casing. I very much doubt a self styled GDPR expert can tell you what will happen in the event of an unknown scenario around the framework and the specific legal rights (in terms of the individual who the data belongs to) and implications for the institution affected. How can they when nobody has even been exposed to such a scenario before ? This makes a GDPR expert in my view about as plausible as a Brexit expert specialising in Article 50.
What defines an expert ?
The focal point here is in the comparison. A weapons expert can be given a gun and a sample of shell casings, then asked to determine if the suspected weapon actually fired the supplied ammunition or not. Using a process of proven identification techniques, the expert can then determine if the gun provided is indeed the origin. This information is derived by using established identity techniques from the indentations and markings in the shell casing created by the gun barrel from which the bullet was expelled, velocity, angle, and speed measurements obtained from firing the weapon. The impact of the bullet and exit damage is also analysed to determine a match based on material and critical evidence. Given the knowledge and experience level required to produce such results, how long do you think it took to reach this unrivalled plateau ? An expert isn't solely based on knowledge. It's not solely based on experience either. In fact, it's a deep mixture of both. Deep in the sense of the subject matter comprehension, and how to execute that same understanding along with real life experience to obtain the optimum result. Here's an example An information technology expert should be able to
- Identify and eliminate potential bottlenecks
- Address security concerns,
- Design high availability
- Factor in extensible scalability
- Consider risk to adjacent and disparate technology and conduct analysis
- Ensure that any design proposal meets both the current criteria and beyond
- Understand the business need for technology and be able to support it
If I leveraged external consultancy for a project, I'd expect all of the above and probably more from anyone who labels themselves as an expert - or for that fact, an architect. Sadly, I've been disappointed on numerous occasions throughout my career where it became evident very quickly that the so called expert (who I hasten to add is earning more an hour than I do in a day in most cases) hired for his “expertise and superior knowledge” in fact appears to know far less than I do about the same topic.
How long does it really take to become an expert ?
I've been in the information technology and security field since I was 16. I'm now 47, meaning 31 years experience (well, 31 as this year isn't over yet). If you consider that experience is acquired during an 8 hour day, and used the following equation to determine the amount of years needed to reach 10,000 hours
10000 / 8 / 365 = 3.4246575342 - for the sake of simple mathematics, let's say 3.5 years.
However, in the initial calculation, it's 10 years (using the basis of 90 minutes invested per day) - making the expert title when aligned to GDPR even more unrealistic. As the directive was adopted on the 27 April 2016, the elapsed time period isn't even enough to carry the first figure cited at 3.5 years, irrespective of the second. The reality here is that no amount of time invested in anything is going to make your an expert if you do not possess the prerequisite skills and a thorough understanding based on previous events in order to supplement and bolster the initial investment. I could spend 10,000 practicing a particular sport - yet effectively suck at it because my body (If you've met me, you'd know why) isn't designed for the activity I'm requesting it to perform. Just because I've spent 10,000 hours reading about something doesn't make me an expert by any stretch of the imagination. If I calculated the hours spanned over my career, I would arrive at the below. I'm basing this on an 8 hour day when in reality, most of my days are in fact much longer.
31 x 365 x 8 = 90,520 hours
Even when factoring in vacation based on 4 weeks per year (subject to variation, but I've gone for the mean average),
31 x 28 X 8 = 6,944 hours to subtract
This is only fair as you are not (supposed to be) working when on holiday. Even with this subtraction, the total is still 83,578 hours. Does my investment make me an expert ? I think so, yes - based on the fact that 31 years dedicated to one area would indicate a high level of experience and professional standard - both of which I constantly strive to maintain. Still think 10,000 hours invested makes you an expert ? You decide ! What are your views around this ?