Reply to: A practical test for a contractor?

[blacjac]

And of course since we're all 100% truthful and honest none of us have ever blagged a gig with a well written CV and a good interview........

Pull the other one, it's got gigantic guilded bells attached.

As to the argument of taking up references this has been discussed on many threads on here and we all know just how much use references are these days. I've got 2 recent contracts on my CV where their corporate policy is not to provide references and in one of those cases a manager even discussing a past employee is a disciplinary offence.
A past employer who gives anything other than a glowing reference is inviting legal action so a growing number of companies take the default approach of confirming dates if they will discuss anything at all.
I dislike sitting or setting tests, but in the past it's proven to be a necessary tactic to help weed out those that can talk a good game but have no idea how to play it in practice.

They are not asking a past employer for a reference, they are asking a past customer.
Which is quite common in the business world. Which and Watchdog are always banging on about asking plumbers for references from previous jobs.

[Fred Bloggs]

That's all I bloody need. Technical tests at home too.

[ft101]

Exactly! I hate that too... "What does the method x does, etc"

C'mon, you can see if a guy is good just by talking to him what he has done, were he used certain technologies, etc...

Not exactly a test, but I had a 'technical interview' with a so called security company in Manchester (NCC). It was a complete joke, not extending much past "what runs on this port?", and "what port does MySQL run on?". They seemed obsessed with port numbers, and (less so) command line arguments (whats wrong with running --help). They were not in the slightest bit interested in practical application of the tools, methodologies that would be used, appropriate recommendations for different types of vulnerabilities etc. I've sat technical interviews with other companies and they were engaging and interesting (and often, mutually beneficial). Having two interviewers testing your memory for obscure port numbers (and just because port 3306 does not actually mean that its mySQL thats listening btw) was plain insulting. They also showed complete disregard for client confidentiality.

[expat]

And of course since we're all 100% truthful and honest none of us have ever blagged a gig with a well written CV and a good interview........

I am and I haven't, ever.

[DieScum]

I have no problem sitting a technical test.

The thing I'd be worried about is whether it is fair and relevant. The person doing the job and setting the test may not have a fair idea of what you can and should know because they are too close to the subject. So something simple for them because they do it a lot might not be common knowledge ... and just because you don't know something off by heart doesn't mean you couldn't get it within 30 seconds with google because you know how to look.

I did one test years ago. Thought I had failed. Was asked to write a few programs. I got the job and on meeting the people there I would be very suprised if most of them could have got anywhere near passing that test and the stuff they tested on was irrelevant to the job.

Looking back I actually realise now why the test was like that. It was just stuff that the bloke who set it knew very well... nothing to do with the actual job. To be fair was a decent test of overall IT literacy plus some very specific areas.

[ratewhore]

If the client wants you to sit a technical test you can guarantee you will be micro-managed.

Bollards to that!!!

[EvilWeevil]

My wife asked me what I knew about it after I'd started the job. "Walked past one once" I told her.

That's all I bloody need. Technical tests at home too.

[Fred Bloggs]

And of course since we're all 100% truthful and honest none of us have ever blagged a gig with a well written CV and a good interview........

Oh yes! I had a very successful contract relating to a certain type of Chemical Plant technology. My wife asked me what I knew about it after I'd started the job. "Walked past one once" I told her. She nearly fainted but in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king and I had the eye on that job. Actually, with more than 25 years experience on lots of types of plant, knowing specifically about one type of pretty obscure process wasn't really required at all whwen it boiled down to it. I think as a professional guy you know when to say "I don't know, but I'll find out". That's sometimes more important than having 50 years experience of one area alone.

[The Lone Gunman]

I object to tests but they are quite widely used.

What realy annoys me is that the contract then has clauses whereby they can terminate for technical incompetance.

This is symptomatic of one of the issues I have had with contracting for years.
That is: Some companies do not want contractors they want temporary staff.

[NickFitz]

It's the old plumbers bill question, isn't it? £300 for turning a tap - that's 20p for doing it and £298.80 for knowing which way to turn it.

You're selling yourself short. You could charge £299.80 for knowing which way to turn it on those figures

[TykeMerc]

Exactly! I hate that too... "What does the method x does, etc"

C'mon, you can see if a guy is good just by talking to him what he has done, were he used certain technologies, etc...

And of course since we're all 100% truthful and honest none of us have ever blagged a gig with a well written CV and a good interview........

Pull the other one, it's got gigantic guilded bells attached.

As to the argument of taking up references this has been discussed on many threads on here and we all know just how much use references are these days. I've got 2 recent contracts on my CV where their corporate policy is not to provide references and in one of those cases a manager even discussing a past employee is a disciplinary offence.
A past employer who gives anything other than a glowing reference is inviting legal action so a growing number of companies take the default approach of confirming dates if they will discuss anything at all.

I dislike sitting or setting tests, but in the past it's proven to be a necessary tactic to help weed out those that can talk a good game but have no idea how to play it in practice.

[Grolubao]

It's questions where you could look the answer up in a few seconds, yet they expect you to memorize it - that's the ones that get right up my nose. They're supposed to test ability, not memory skills.

Exactly! I hate that too... "What does the method x does, etc"

C'mon, you can see if a guy is good just by talking to him what he has done, were he used certain technologies, etc...

[fishtastic]

Obviously springing a test on someone without warning is not on.

Candidates were given several days notice that there would be a test and a rough outline of what they would be asked i.e. basic admin.

a brief (25 mins) tech test weeded the sheep from the goats.

It does seem to, from my experience, hence my surprise with this guy when he said no-one had ever asked before...

Fish

[TykeMerc]

When you've got a very finite handover opportunity so you can't afford the time to redo the recruitment process a short practical test is far from an unreasonable thing to ask. Obviously springing a test on someone without warning is not on.

I've been in this situation with a permy Sys Admin who had a long planned major surgery date moved forwards by a cancellation from 6 months away to 2 weeks the handover was critical and the Sys Admin put together the test. I hadn't done Sys Admin in 5 years and I sat it along with several other contractors with no problems it was fairly basic stuff that any experienced Sys Admin could stroll through.

1 candidate refused to attend the test, 3 failed and 2 passed, we hired 1 as the Sys Admin stunt double for 6 months and the other for a project role and a bit of backup cover so the stunt double could do bits of project work too.

Of the 6 candidates they could all have been hired purely off CV and interview but a brief (25 mins) tech test weeded the sheep from the goats.

[tim123]

I'm not going to insult a contractor to ask basic stuff.

Why not, for all you know the guy could be blagging it.

tim