I have had a search going the last decade or so at the biggest job posting site in Norway. I like knowing which companies are hiring, and what kind of people they are looking for.
The last year or so, I have seen more and more job postings with variations of “you need to have worked in very expensive projects”. It usually isn’t worded exactly like this, though. The usual phrase is based on looking for some kind of leadership role, but only if you have experience with major projects – and here major projects are measured in money. “Need to have been a <something> on projects which cost more than <some nine-digit sum in NOK>”. So far, we haven’t been able to run projects into ten digits here in Norway, and I really hope it isn’t just a question of time.
This mystifies me.
IT projects are – at least not after the .COM frenzy, where a bunch of moneypushers tried to tell us the usual rules were suspended – not supposed to burn off the maximum amount of money possible. You are not supposed to build the biggest empire you can. You are supposed to use the minimal amount of IT needed to increase your earnings. Every extra coin spent needlessly on IT eats into the earnings.
Very few companies consistently manage to hit the sweet spot. Some underspend on IT, and increase their costs or fail to get hold of the possibilities that are enabled by IT. People tell me a lot of companies who have tried to offshore development have learnt this the hard way. Others overspend on IT, and reduce their earnings through direct IT spending.
Going far enough in a job ad to say right out that employees are measured by the amount of money they have managed to spend it totally beyond me.
Why would anyone actively communicate that they want the biggest spenders in the class? Even if they are vetting the applicants during the interview process to sieve out the big spenders, the job posting itself sets an unacceptable standard for whoever is already employed, and this mindset is going to take a major amount of leadership to correct. “We have big balls because we are rolling in other people’s money”? In the future of these companies I see people delivering stuff that doesn’t work. The work ethic and the craftsmanship will have gone from the workplace. This can happen all too easily to a development team. When standards slip, they slip fast.
Fixing a culture that has has been degraded in this way reduces the efficiency of whichever leader was just hired, and increases the costs of the project because the other problems – the problems that presumably were there before the job was posted, and is the reason for the role being created – are going to get less attention.
I hope this kind of wording is a kind of slang – a slang created, probably unconsciously, by groups who have worked together in the past. I hope these groups learn to reassess their value in terms of worth. The alternatives are all far worse.
Geir,
I think you are missing the point in these ads, or rather putting more meaning into the wording than intended. I am quite sure that companies advertising in this way acutally want to ensure that they find people with eperience in running such large/expensive projects because they realize that it is important to keep track of the economics – a budget overrun of 1% sound very little, but when it is 1% of nine digits it is still a very large amount of money. I would also think that putting a person who only has run small projects in charge of a nine-digit one may be a quick way to ruin a good project and a good project manager all at once.
Having experience is important, and should be built up gradually. If a company needs someone to step into a position where a certain kind of experience is important they must either look at building up their existing employees gradually, or hire someone who can document that they can do the job. I doubt that they are trying to say “we are loaded with money and want to spend it fast”, but perhaps “we are loaded with money and want to spend it in the right way”.
Chris (Only up to eight digits in my projects)
Hi, Chris.
Um, actually, no. I am working it “from the other side”, as it were. I see what effects these kinds of ads have on developer teams, and they are not nice.
I have had someone who calls himself an architect tell me he didn´t care about costs, straight to my face. I think that is a horrible statement, but this guy isn´t an idiot. He has to have gotten his misconceptions from somewhere.
I think he had a long hard look at what would gain him promotion – or at least what people seemed to say would gain him promotion – and adjusted his sights to fit that goal. He is walking in the wrong direction, but I don´t think that is his fault.
I have seen this kind of miscommunication in various situations lately. Something must be getting through in the wrong way from whoever is setting the direction. We agree on what they are trying to do. I just don´t think it is working. If it isn´t working, they need to send different signals.
This is important. 90% of software projects come in over budget. The industry needs all the help it can get to get this sorted out, and to weed out any thoughts that money isn´t important. IT is a tool to make more money, not a tool to get rid of it.
Geir