Professionalism = Knowledge First, Experience Last

Honestly, you are partially correct.

Let me give you a real situation: Given the choice between a ROR developer yet to roll out a site to a large audience and a delphi programmer who has rolled out software to thousands of users, we chose the delphi programmer. Delphi sucks and ROR rules, but it has been my experience that any modestly intelligent software guy can program well, but FEW people can successfully roll out large software projects. Its the end result of the monkey test. We chose the delphi guy, and he picked up ROR in a few days and used his experience to thwart many problems much earlier than would have occured with the site.

You seem to be confusing experience as doing rather than experience as learning. If someone rolled out 100 delphi clients regardless of client requests (websites, apps, client server, rocket control systems) then you have something to worry about. But if you see experience as learning, then its more valuable than knowledge per se (as you can't read experience).

Let me put it another way: would you like someone who ran a successful web design business or someone who wrote w3 specs?

I believe knowledge is a commodity and experience (good experience) is scarce. Thats why the famous exec who lost millions on his first day wasn't allowed to quit, his boss invested millions of dollars in his experience!

I can see where you are coming from though, but give any successful business owner a choice between two candidates with equal ABILITY for knowledge but different experience, and they will always choose the one with more experience. They just understand what experience counts for, and you don't.

Yes, the people you hire need to have a level competency in the skills for which you are hiring them. That is what technical interviews, tests and whatnot are for. However, I have experienced the other side of this type of thinking. I myself have approximately 10 years experience in software engineer though I do not have a college degree. For many hiring companies this apparently means that I do not have any knowledge at all. Which is absurd.

So I think you should look at what types of things the person has done in those many years of experience. Is there anything they can produce for inspection? What are their achievements, etc.? Sure you wouldn't hire the guy that goes for the lobotomy, but would you consider a doctor who had hundreds of success stories with patients using the correct or appropriate treatment?

True knowledge comes from experience...

I agree with you. Experience makes you handle the problems quicker. However, if you don't know how to solve them, you cannot do anything. Knowledge brings you the experience. Because, you face the problem and spend lots of time to solve it. So, you know it. When you faced the same problem for the second time, you solve it in a minute. I think, this is experience.
In addition, as you said, you cannot measure the experience with only counting passing years. Two people come to the same experience level one with spending 3 months and the other with spending 3 years. :D

I agree with the points you are making here. It seems there are a lot of people in development/project management/etc. who rest on past successes to give credibility to their out-of-date opinions.

You seem to be confusing the ability to regurgitate a solution (knowledge) with the ability to practically use that solution (experience). The latter is more important. It's why there is a position called "junior developer". Its why you can't do a doctorate without a research paper or years of experience, experience counts more than knowledge.

Epic fail.

For all the stupid content and comparisons of this text, this is probably the more stupid:

"Suppose you have to choose between two people: - one person with only knowledge (but not having any experience yet) - one person with only experience (but not knowing if he is doing the right thing) Which one would you choose? "

How can a person have "only experience"? It has to know something to do something even if he's "not knowing if he is doing the right thing". At the very least he has to know to do something in the wrong way. Actually a person can have *only experience* without knowledge if he's experienced in doing... nothing!

On the other hand, nobody can have experience in doing things without knowing if he's doing it right, because if he does he probably screw it very often and then he gets fired and won't be able to get more experience on wrongdoings.

About the other stupid comparison about the doctors, well, at that time it was the best treatment for that particular condition. There is even a Nobel Prize given for that. To say what you said now it's like saying "why the stupid sailors that discover America (by change, actually) used wooden ships moved by wind and not some metallic, diesel-propelled ships? Or why the stupid Romans and Greeks used a abacus to make calculations where there is so many spreadsheets to do it?

Bottom line, this text is just some rants of no interest whatsoever. I don't know why I wasted time commenting it. I maybe better be doing something, even if I don't know if it's the right thing.

Well, I didn't call you stupid, just the comparisons you made. Saying something stupid does not make a person stupid, that only happens if a person says more stupid things than otherwise. No offense intended. But please, this last example of yours, a dentist who wants to remove two good teeth to save one, well, what can I say? Is so stupid that can only be a joke...

But my point is, there's *no one* that can have just "only experience", experience is the accumulation of knowledge. So what you're been talking about just doesn't make any sense. There is no dichotomy between "knowledge" and "experience". One is consequence of the other. You can only have experience based on the application of knowledge, but when you're using your experience you're actually learning something more.

You can actually start by having "no knowledge" and acquire knowledge through practice, learning as you go. Actually, all "knowledge" come from some kind of "experience". Man probably "know" how to make fire because some many centuries ago they try and fail and try and fail until they actually succeeded in producing fire. So what you call "knowledge" was actually someone else "experience".

As said elsewhere, if you're in the middle of a burning house, who do you prefer? A fireman who had been in that same situation dozens of times but it's from the time when there was no fire schools, so he never actually "learned" how to do fire fighting except through his experience or someone that had just finished his Fire Fighting school?

But serious, I'm not calling you stupid.

Don't post deliberately provocative material then. If you want a sensible debate, be sensible. If what you mean to say was that sometimes doing things the same way as in the past is bad, well, you should have written that.

Instead, you wrote:
"There's a concept called Kanban making headlines these days in some parts of the agile community. I honestly and proudly admit that I have no experience at all in applying Kanban. But that's just a minor inconvenience. Because I do have attained the knowledge of what it is and what it can be good for. And now there are some planning issues in our organization for which this Kanban-stuff might be the perfect solution. I'm sure we're going to give it a shot, in a controlled setting, with time allocated for a pilot and proper evaluations afterwards. That's the way a professional tries to solve a problem."

I would never hire you. No one who had any sense would. I mean, maybe you will say that you would only use it in a very limited way etc. (to get experience with it maybe?) but since you dismiss the value of experience, I will assume you would just as soon roll it out on your most important project. I can't even start to explain to you all the reasons you are wrong (seriously, its not worth my time), but I honestly believe its important that you realize you are an IDIOT and need to seriously reconsider how you approach technology.

Well, I didn't realize that there was a poll going on. So I think if 12 people agree with you, it's a well proven fact that you're are right. No doubt about it. Congratulations! But you saying that, is just one more stupid thing to say in the line of all the stupid things you said until now. C'mom, get real, do you really think the fact that 12 people agree with do (kinda) and 6 disagree, makes you right? [Part of the comment was censored by Artem. Sorry, no offensive name calling here]

Or maybe, just maybe, those 12 lack the *experience* to know that in the real world, outside of your little head and outside your "controlled setting, with time allocated for a pilot and proper evaluations afterwards" - btw, in the real "real" world that never happens, there is simply no time for pilots and proper evaluations, that's why *experience* is so valuable - things are not as you say. The only reason to prefer "knowledge" over "experience" - and I hope you've realized for now that there are no such thing as "experience without knowledge" or as you put it "only experience" because both live in the same house, they are the two faces of the same coin - is probably because you lack experience, and thus you need " time for pilots and proper evaluations" - and you only need that to overcome your lack of experience and limited general knowledge - while the experienced guys do the *real* work.

"Professionals don't match problems with their experiences. They match them with their knowledge."

This thought process leads to teams fitting a problem to a solution they would like to use. I see this all the time in the consulting world. Sell a company on a new technology buzz word and then leave them with a faulty solution.

Technology X is new, I'd like to use it. I think my client's problem can be solved with Technology X, although I have no experience with it. Who cares what the side effects are! We won't find out until long after my company is gone. Besides, Mr. Evangelist says its good!

Critical thinking involves thinking about something from all angles before making a decision. Did you think about this post from all angles before submitting? You do not acknowledge any value in experience. This is to say that a new graduate really can know it all. Perhaps a degree or HS diploma isn't even necessary experience?

Experience is valuable, regardless of if it is with a specified technology. You need experience to know what could go wrong, as well as what should go right.

One can have knowledge without experience,
but one cannot have experience without acquiring knowledge.

"I couldn't care less about programming languages. I care about management practices."

Gee, I hope you manage everything but programmers/developers. Because, I hope this aren't news to you, developers *do* use programming languages...

The only thing hilarious by now is how someone that says nonsense, stupid things with the aid of even more stupid arguments still thinks it's saying something right. And why? Because 16 people agreed with him (I noticed that you updated your post from 12 to 16 - wow!). Actually, if you know how to read and understand what they are saying, most have said "yes, but...". Maybe you have the knowledge to read but you lack the experience to understand what they say?

Get a grip. Put in your little head of yours that there is no such thing as "only experience" as you said earlier (please don't update that too), all experience implies knowledge. As I said elsewhere, "experience can not exist without knowledge and the very act of acquiring knowledge creates experience."

You just said nonsense that grab you much more attention than you deserve. You should be learning something out of this experience in order to improve your knowledge about posting nonsense, stupid things and, thus learning your lesson, admit that you were just plain wrong. And, with the experience thus acquired, think twice before posting other nonsense, stupid things.

Professionals don't match problems with their experiences. They match them with their knowledge.
Professionalism is measured by what you are going to do now...
Knowledge Comes First, Experience Comes Last

Were you drunk when you posted this? You are pretty young, aren't you?

And why do I have a feeling that it's the "new" guys that are "envious" of the money more experienced guys make, and are somehow trying to "dismiss" the value of experience in order to feel better about what they think is a "injustice"? :d

Really, evey comment in this post are right, it's all depends on the point of view, and interpretation.
By the way, i have used your post with some comment on my on, in my blog, with the reference to yours. Here is the link.
http://julianocarniel.blogspot.com/2008/07/conhecimento-vale-mais-que-ex...

Thanks for the... open-to-discusssion-idea. =)

Really don't think this post has any value at all. I think everyone knows better than to take someone's 5 years or 10 years of experience with a pinch of salt until it is determined what the guy is good for.

But morphing that into a Knowledge versus Experience argument is pointless. What next? Smile versus Handshake???

you can only acquire knowledge through experience.

Experience is important. The best indicator of someone's future performance, is looking at someone's past performance.

Education helps. In some areas it’s a must have.

Most education will not give you ambition, nerves or moral, it will not make you a fighter. However it gives you knowledge, and sometimes knowledge is key.

So just walking about with a lot of knowledge won’t make you a success. You have to throw yourself into action, the right action, and make things happen, even if you’re stomach screams no. Forward is the way to go. That will give you ambition, nerves and moral. You have to build yourself in a way.

I do what I have to do in order to achieve my objectives, with common sence ofcourse. And if that includes having to get an education, so be it.