when did this appear? i literally have never seen it before i read this post, and it makes no sense at all to me.
Very common phrase in the tech industry.
Are you US based? Beginning my career in the mid 00s I was exposed to "IC" pretty much day 1 starting at Microsoft.
Other people around me in adjacent sectors also use the phrase to refer to non-managers, it is pretty common daily parlance, I am 99% sure I can ask any of my knowledge worker friends and they'll know what I am talking about.
Google trends show "individual contributor" has been a pretty popular phrase since at least 2011.
is "knowledge workers" still a thing? it was meaningless when it was introduced in the 60s, even more so now.
another bubble creature, i guess.
Every country, and even different regions of a country, has linguistic differences. This is true even if all the countries being talked about have the same national language.
For example, nobody in the US tech sector is going to know what a Boffin is unless they read The Register.
Even on the west coast of the US, vocabulary is different between California and the Pacific Northwest, although things started to merge together when the Silicon Valley based tech companies began opening offices up in Seattle.
Yes, everyone knows there are two tech giants based in Seattle. What this person was saying is that other large companies have also opened/grown Seattle offices in the past decade and vice versa, which has caused usage of corporate vocabulary to merge.
Maybe you should reflect on the fact that you don't seem to understand what people in this thread are talking about and stop acting like you do.
The labor group that requires significant creativity and autonomy to be effective. The artifacts they create are a minority of the value they create.
Mostly they became a real thing because traditional management techniques fail to work well with knowledge workers.
I've been in the industry since 1998. The first time I saw it was on HN a few years ago (maybe 3 or 4).
Hah!
I would just love to see that thread - may it is also filled with "What's an IC?" :-)
> so i guess that managers are not individuals and don't contribute?
> i have never, ever come across a programmer working on a system of any complexity that did not depend on contributions from other programmers.
No one said non-ICs aren't individuals, and no one said they don't contribute. No one said that ICs don't work with others or depend on others.
What has been said, several times, is that their contributions (i.e. the code they produce, artifacts they create, etc) are largely individual contributions. They are the ones creating the thing, and are not responsible for others.
This gets a bit murky as you move up the IC chain, in that your contributions become less tangible and are in part measured on how you lead others and make those around you more efficient. But your performance is still largely judged on what you produced.