I have seen the dynamics of the world ICT industry change dramatically. As an IT old timer I have already seen a few downturns.
Friends in other countries have been equally dealing with the shortage of roles and the increased levels of competition. It is in the way that many companies (and their staffers) select that I wish to make comment.
One friend with the same amount of experience as myself and more so in C++, failed a language test. Now I have been wondering what this implies! Is he no longer any good? Well I would hire him any day and know that I could sit back and expect excellent results. No, he’s good.
Actually he mentioned the sort of areas that the test touched on. They tested knowledge of rarely used features, or should I say features that would only be used in a certain environment. So, the test assesses that the person has been working in that area (fair enough) or that they have a good book knowledge of the language!
Personally, I would want to know if someone is bright and adaptable, but call me old fashioned if you will.
I have repeatedly interviewed for roles, and of course been interviewed. It was the last set of interviewer side interviews where I realised the applicants had neither of those traits (not bright nor adaptable) . In the end the best applicant did not have all the specific skills and experience, but he was bright, he listened to the questions and he tried to answer them. He asked questions when he knew he needed to know more. He had the right approach and proved to be the right person many times over. Actually he too is now a friend.
So is this, sadly common, way of testing purely to whittle down the numbers of candidates? Well surely one would not wish to discard a candidate with 20 years experience based on such a test! At least I hope there wasn’t a line up of people with such experience! ;-)
Well here is my 2 cents worth. An appropriately skilled person who has so many years experience is worth their weight in gold. Why? Because by comparison with someone with book knowledge, they will start their project late and bring it in on time if not early. They will do so because that level of experience tells them what the issues are, what will block work and so what should be done, or not done, to get results. They will make a project successful. The book knowledge person will weigh your project down like a lead balloon.
I can only sit back and wonder what our profession would be like if it were more mature, and an association, say like IEEE, required professional appraisals of skills in a formalized way. Yes, we could do away with this adhoc testing which is reinvented by every man and his dog (or salary man) and have a ‘profession’ to boot. Am I the only one who ‘gets it’?
Here’s dreaming.
ADDENDUM: my well read colleague at Transentia ‘got it’. And being well read he pointed to someone else who had. And in a nice font. Spolsky is worth a read.
