Word matching agency methods. . .are they letting the industry down?

[northernladuk]

You have a view on how agents fit in to the model but I see it differently. The agent is a middle man or an enabler. I have to play that enabler knowing how they work and meet the requirements to then get in front of the client. Agents, as you say, have ceased to become the resource finders of old so we have to use different methods to play that system to an advantage. I think understanding that is much more useful than trying to change them.

Have to say I wish I had contracted in the days of old when you could 'do business' with agents but sadly I missed it.

[kevpuk]

Pretty much as per what NLUK says, IMHO

Word-matching is a reasonably practical starting point, to filter volumes to more manageable levels perhaps. From there, the agent is exactly the enabler - if one can understand their *needs* and the client's, then it becomes the 'dance of the negotiation'.

Agent knows what client will pay, and also knows that (in many cases) there are other competing agents out there trying to secure the client the candidate that best fits. So, agent needs to selectively target their best fits from the pool they have application from and/or on their systems already. Next, agent needs to sound out candidates, probably in some prioritised order based on some dark formulae involving 'rate-margin*likelihood+brownie-points' or similar.......this is where we as candidates come in to play fully - to my mind, the trick is to sell yourself on the 'likelihood' part of the formula; if you and agent can agree on this, then their margin perhaps takes a little step back....after all, a strong chance of earning, say, 10% margin is maybe preferable to a 50/50 chance of earning 15% margin and so on.

The agent is the facilitator, but only once you are in front of them. Thus, CV is important for getting through to them in the first place, but thereafter you can influence things to a degree if you 'get' what the bigger picture is.

Just my tuppence...

[TransitTrucker]

Nice one. Far more constructive. I agree with most of it. You are making a number of presumptions though:

I don't really want to change the world. I was just stimulating a discussion. I know we are where we are so my job hunting has changed to fit the modern scene. I'm lucky inasmuch as I don't need to work every day God sends. These days I am very choosy about the contract. Most of my contracts last a few years at a time.

A point of clarity: I send my CV in for a job that looks a really good fit to me. The agent says "but you don't have SSAS experience. It isn't on your CV". My reply is that I have Microsoft BI stack experience. They say "but SSAS isn't on your CV". I say "but that is part of the BI stack and you asked for a short CV". . . that is really what I mean by the issues with word matching. It is a communication issue really. It is overcome by the agent that knows his stuff. I think keyword search over reliance gets in the way for experienced people with long CVs.

[TransitTrucker]

Pretty much as per what NLUK says, IMHO

Word-matching is a reasonably practical starting point, to filter volumes to more manageable levels perhaps. From there, the agent is exactly the enabler - if one can understand their *needs* and the client's, then it becomes the 'dance of the negotiation'.

Agent knows what client will pay, and also knows that (in many cases) there are other competing agents out there trying to secure the client the candidate that best fits. So, agent needs to selectively target their best fits from the pool they have application from and/or on their systems already. Next, agent needs to sound out candidates, probably in some prioritised order based on some dark formulae involving 'rate-margin*likelihood+brownie-points' or similar.......this is where we as candidates come in to play fully - to my mind, the trick is to sell yourself on the 'likelihood' part of the formula; if you and agent can agree on this, then their margin perhaps takes a little step back....after all, a strong chance of earning, say, 10% margin is maybe preferable to a 50/50 chance of earning 15% margin and so on.

The agent is the facilitator, but only once you are in front of them. Thus, CV is important for getting through to them in the first place, but thereafter you can influence things to a degree if you 'get' what the bigger picture is.

Just my tuppence...

Good points. I produced a few "case studies" to help the agent match the CV to spec. They relate required skill to where used. These had limited success but helped the agent understand the relevance of my application and bridged the terminology gap (we haven't mentioned that one as yet). Because I take quite mixed contracts (a bit PM, a bit BA and a bit architect) I get a very confusing CV out of it. You see NLUK I have adapted my methods to the modern world a little bit . . .

TT

[kevpuk]

<snip>bridged the terminology gap<snip>

...and herein is another issue.
For me, it actually worked the other way round with one contract - I saw the specs, thought I *might* be able to do this (was quite motivated by clientco I had been with previously, proximity to kevpuk towers and rate) but was actually a little concerned by the terminology. Then, Agent calls to say 'I am perfect for this gig', telephone interview arranged promptly. Phone call with client quickly shows me that I am toally comfortable and proficient with what they are looking for, and hey-ho - what started as me thinking "hhhmmm, maybe not up my street" actually ended up as "wow, perfect role" all down to what words/terminology had been used on the original spec!

[TransitTrucker]

...and herein is another issue.
For me, it actually worked the other way round with one contract - I saw the specs, thought I *might* be able to do this (was quite motivated by clientco I had been with previously, proximity to kevpuk towers and rate) but was actually a little concerned by the terminology. Then, Agent calls to say 'I am perfect for this gig', telephone interview arranged promptly. Phone call with client quickly shows me that I am toally comfortable and proficient with what they are looking for, and hey-ho - what started as me thinking "hhhmmm, maybe not up my street" actually ended up as "wow, perfect role" all down to what words/terminology had been used on the original spec!

That is how it comes together in a lot of contracts I've had lately. But isn't this advocating the personal touch. Your agent should know you are perfect for the job and contact you even though he may need to "read between the lines". Straight word matching would have excluded you from the perfect contract. And that is exactly the point I was trying to make (in a rather clumsy way).

[northernladuk]

Good points. I produced a few "case studies" to help the agent match the CV to spec. They relate required skill to where used. These had limited success but helped the agent understand the relevance of my application and bridged the terminology gap (we haven't mentioned that one as yet). Because I take quite mixed contracts (a bit PM, a bit BA and a bit architect) I get a very confusing CV out of it. You see NLUK I have adapted my methods to the modern world a little bit . . .

TT

But the agent doesn't time nor the understanding to read the case studies. If he had time or inclination to do this he wouldn't be keyword searching. Can't harm your case I am sure and if it helps you get a tiny step above the next guy then go for it but I certainly don't think it is the way to beat an agent.

The bold bit is your real problem NOT the agents.

[TransitTrucker]

But the agent doesn't time nor the understanding to read the case studies. If he had time or inclination to do this he wouldn't be keyword searching. Can't harm your case I am sure and if it helps you get a tiny step above the next guy then go for it but I certainly don't think it is the way to beat an agent.

The bold bit is your real problem NOT the agents.

It was Hays that first asked for a Case Study. They in turn were asked by the client (Big government department) in London.

[northernladuk]

It was Hays that first asked for a Case Study. They in turn were asked by the client (Big government department) in London.

Ah ok, you didn't say they asked. I thought it was a differentiator as part of your initial CV submittal.

But anyway.. Did I mention the bold bit?

[TransitTrucker]

Ah ok, you didn't say they asked. I thought it was a differentiator as part of your initial CV submittal.

But anyway.. Did I mention the bold bit?

The bold bit is a strange one and I don't know whether it is common issue or not. I seem to get employed with a nominal job title but the client seems to use me in a number of different roles as time goes by or in several roles at the same time. I often get a contract to collect requirements, then get asked to project manage the requirements into fruition and then get to be the lead tester. For me this makes sense as you get some continuity and everything that comes with that. But it it isn't straightforward to document the multi-skilled nature of the work in the CV. Also, I wander through a lot of different types of clients: avionics, finance, insurance, medical etc. Again, agencies like to put you in a box as you are easier to deal with that way. Clients used to view this as an advantage. You bring new ideas from other industries. I don't find it thought of that way any more. I find that you are expected to be a "one trick pony". However, that attitude melts away when the client experiences what you can do. Maybe that is a trust thing. . .


TT