The US military actually has various perspectives on this statement by branch:
> But mandating generalist knowledge is actually a norm in other countries. The Brits/Canadians tell a joke about US soldiers: Whereas each member of a british or canadian gun crew is expected to understand and perform all the jobs associated with firing a gun, an American is likely to respond "I pull the rope."
For instance, the Marines encourage a lot of cross-training. First and foremost, it shoots operational cost to the bottom if you have, say, a Corporal that's formally trained in electronics, but also knows their way around MEPDIS gear, HVAC, guns, and troop movement. The reason you'll hear the most touted though: "What if someone dies; who can take their place?" It's like a right of passage in a way. Green Berets, Navy SWIC, and SEAL/S work in under similar lines of thought from what I know. This all aligns to their mission though: seizing forward positions.
The line company Army, however, focuses on specialization. The reasoning is pretty simple: their mandate is to occupy. imo, the way people organize around knowledge is based on the challenges they perceive in the mission ahead. I've yet to figure out how to replicate this in software.
>> First and foremost, it shoots operational cost to the bottom
Operational costs yes, but not training costs. Make that general knowledge a minimum standard and you have to train the people in all manner of things before they are useful. The marines, from my outside perspective, are still very specialized in terms of basic riflemen training but are open to cross-training once someone is at an operational unit. Each marine doesn't need a sniper qual from day one, but the corps will certainly help them get it later. The navy submariner is different because of the number of mandatory quals before you are considered usable on a boat.
The Marines do have a baseline of knowledge you have to obtain. There's actually two phases to it:
1. Bootcamp. You're learning all the basics, from history to troop movement, and basic weapons qualification.
2. Infantry Training Battalion. A primer on top of bootcamp for navigation, shooting, troop movement, and weapons qualification. (These are required of every Marine in order to join "The Fleet")
3. Primary/Secondary school. This is your a-billet training (your primary job).
Where most of the other training occurs is once you're in the fleet, which occurs in your first unit after Step 3. There's a moderately high attrition baseline to get to the fleet, which signifies a minimally deployable Marine.
> I've yet to figure out how to replicate this in software.
while substantially different in nature (defined by mission), both marines and army have the same principle: it’s your job to learn the job of your superior (because if they die, you need to be able to take over) - a principle that applies at every rank.
If a single person is the sole bearer of incredibly critical information it's a failure of the organization to insure itself against risk and possibly a failure of the individual to properly express the amount of specialized knowledge.
I think tech companies are pretty good about this though, since the whole meme around "bus factor" is well understood and broadly discussed.
The Army may prefer specialization simply because they’re large enough to be able to, eg have enough redundancy that if one specialist dies there are more to replace him.
The Marines, subs, and the other examples you give are smaller units, and simply may not have that size-based redundancy.
As a quasi-related aside, at a startup I worked on a DARPA contract where the Marines were the theoretical end customer (FANG / Adaptive Vehicle Make). There are few cooler people in the world to chew the fat with than Marine warrant officers. YATYAS!
> But mandating generalist knowledge is actually a norm in other countries. The Brits/Canadians tell a joke about US soldiers: Whereas each member of a british or canadian gun crew is expected to understand and perform all the jobs associated with firing a gun, an American is likely to respond "I pull the rope."
For instance, the Marines encourage a lot of cross-training. First and foremost, it shoots operational cost to the bottom if you have, say, a Corporal that's formally trained in electronics, but also knows their way around MEPDIS gear, HVAC, guns, and troop movement. The reason you'll hear the most touted though: "What if someone dies; who can take their place?" It's like a right of passage in a way. Green Berets, Navy SWIC, and SEAL/S work in under similar lines of thought from what I know. This all aligns to their mission though: seizing forward positions.
The line company Army, however, focuses on specialization. The reasoning is pretty simple: their mandate is to occupy. imo, the way people organize around knowledge is based on the challenges they perceive in the mission ahead. I've yet to figure out how to replicate this in software.