Postcard CV

As a hiring manager it'll often be days between engagements with a candidate. I am not renowned for my memory but, even if I was, it'd be hard to remember all relevant details of all relevant candidates during a recruitment drive. Over the years I've developed a way of taking notes which I find helps me to cheaply review and keep track of what I think of a candidate and why, and which gives me the data I need at each stage.

When we open recruitment for a new position I'll start a new directory and each applicant will get a text file in it as I read their CV. I use very simple markup to record my thoughts into the file and to put notes for myself to pick up when I come back.

I have a handful of key requirements:

I want my notes on each candidate to be in one place (for ease of consumption).
I want my notes across candidates to be consistent (for ease of comparison and navigation).
I want my notes to be put down in real time (for efficiency).

Let's have an example. Imagine a candidate, call him Rupert Rowling. When Rupert's CV arrives, I'll start a new file, Rupert Rowling.txt, and in it I'll type:

== Details ==

== CV ==

I'll paste in any relevant details from the agent, or a cover letter, or our HR staff into the top section, and then my thoughts as I read the CV into the bottom. For Rupert, it might contain this kind of thing:

== Details ==
Currently a teacher, but extremely keen to move into testing. 
Lives in Stoke. Would relocate for the role. 

== CV ==
- testing 
+ tech support role
? ... but 15 years ago
+ open source development

The annotations represent potential negative (-), potential positive (+), potential concern or query (?), a sub-thought (...), and very occasionally a WTF (!). You'll notice that I say "potential"; at this point, all the evidence is from written materials which are, at best, a biased representation of the candidate filtered through my own prejudices.

Here I'm comparing the candidate to the job advert, noting things that stand out, wondering about questions that I would ask if they get to the next stage. This section is rarely more than 10 lines long. I think of it as a kind of telegram, or a postcard of my opinion of the candidate's CV. Once I'm done, I'll add a final line which says what I think I'd do:

No testing, but tech support is often a good fit. Let's interview.

If I'm recruiting with someone else I'll add a subsection with their thoughts:

=== Sheila ===
Worth interviewing.
I like Rupert's obvious enthusiasm for testing.
His experience with foreign languages could be useful.

If there's no agreement, we'll talk until there is. When there's agreement, I'll copy-paste data from my notes to the place I have to log decisions inside the formal company HR process.

At any point, if I think we'd interview the candidate, I will also make the next section and put any questions I thought of while reading the CV into it. For Rupert this might include:

== Phone ==
> why is now the time for a career change?
> what does teaching give you that would be valuable as a tester?

Notice the annotation (>) again. I use it in this section to represent my input, either questions I asked during a phone conversation or planned to ask beforehand.

I don't generally note down generic questions in this section in advance. I use a separate checklist for those, and sometimes refer to it during the call. For particular specialist roles, I will make up a set of questions designed to exercise the candidate's knowledge and experience and, again, keep that in a separate place, pulling questions from it during the interview, based on the direction the conversation has taken.

In this example, me and Sheila both think Rupert has potential, so a phone interview is set up. Shortly before it, I'll re-skim the CV, review my notes, and add any more questions that come to mind. During the call, I'll record questions and answers as we go. Here's Rupert's answer to one of my prepared questions, and then my follow-up:

> what does teaching give you that would be valuable as a tester?
* prioritisation, time-boxing: content fits to a lesson
* balance with opportunism: follow kids' interest

> when to take the opportunity?
* experience
* rules of thumb: 
* ... class mood; % covered; proximity to the curriculum

The annotation this time (*) is a standard bullet point, where I'll aim to make each a distinct thought from the candidate.

During the call, I'll create a summary sub-section and, when I spot something notable or a pattern, I'll write it in using the annotations from before:

=== Summary ===
+ spoke very confidently
+ good reasons for testing
+ ... appreciated testers on his OS projects
? OK at coming up with test ideas 
- tech support was on Vic 20 network

As some point after the call I'll debrief with any other interviewers, compare to other candidates, and decide whether we'd like the candidate to proceed. If needed, I'll tweak the summary to include those conversations and, as before, it'll form the basis of what I put into the HR machinery.

The next phase in the Linguamatics process is a technical exercise. Again, I'll enter my assessment into the text file as I go through the candidate's response, with the same annotation conventions we've already seen. My review will have a Summary section, and also thoughts on questions I might like to ask at face-to-face interview.

In this made-up story, Rupert's exercise is good enough for someone with no testing experience, so Sheila and me decide we'll ask him to come into the office to talk to us, and some more of the team.

At this point, my personal process switches to being paper-based. Interviews are hard enough for the candidates without an additional distraction of me typing, and the possible perception that I'm not paying attention to them. Later on, I'll summarise aspects of the face-to-face interview back into my notes but those are usually conclusions of the interview panel rather than anything detailed about the interview.

So that's my current note-taking approach, tuned by me for my requirements, and enabled by other things I do, such as:

Setting things up so that making a new file is just a handful of keystrokes.
Learning to touch type.
Developing my annotation conventions.

Have you got a custom system? I'd love to hear about it.
Image: Discogs

Meet Me Halfway?

The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter , LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me? --00-- "Stop answering my questions with questions." Sure, I can do that. In return, please stop asking me questions so open to interpretation that any answ...

How do I Test AI?

Recently a few people have asked me how I test AI. I'm happy to share my experiences, but I frame the question more broadly, perhaps something like this: what kinds of things do I consider when testing systems with artificial intelligence components . I freestyled liberally the first time I answered but when the question came up again I thought I'd write a few bullets to help me remember key things. This post is the latest iteration of that list. Caveats: I'm not an expert; what you see below is a reminder of things to pick up on during conversations so it's quite minimal; it's also messy; it's absolutely not a guide or a set of best practices; each point should be applied in context; the categories are very rough; it's certainly not complete. Also note that I work with teams who really know what they're doing on the domain, tech, and medical safety fronts and some of the things listed here are things they'd typically do some or all of. Testing ...

The Best Programmer Dan Knows

I was pairing with my friend Vernon at work last week, on a tool I've been developing. He was smiling broadly as I talked him through what I'd done because we've been here before. The tool facilitates a task that's time-consuming, inefficient, error-prone, tiresome, and important to get right. Vern knows that those kinds of factors trigger me to change or build something, and that's why he was struggling not to laugh out loud. He held himself together and asked a bunch of sensible questions about the need, the desired outcome, and the approach I'd taken. Then he mentioned a talk by Daniel Terhorst-North, called The Best Programmer I Know, and said that much of it paralleled what he sees me doing. It was my turn to laugh then, because I am not a good programmer, and I thought he knew that already. What I do accept, though, is that I am focussed on the value that programs can give, and getting some of that value as early as possible. He sent me a link to the ta...

Notes on Testing Notes

Ben Dowen pinged me and others on Twitter last week , asking for "a nice concise resource to link to for a blog post - about taking good Testing notes." I didn't have one so I thought I'd write a few words on how I'm doing it at the moment for my work at Ada Health, alongside Ben. You may have read previously that I use a script to upload Markdown-based text files to Confluence . Here's the template that I start from: # Date + Title # Mission # Summary WIP! # Notes Then I fill out what I plan to do. The Mission can be as high or low level as I want it to be. Sometimes, if deeper context might be valuable I'll add a Background subsection to it. I don't fill in the Summary section until the end. It's a high-level overview of what I did, what I found, risks identified, value provided, and so on. Between the Mission and Summary I hope that a reader can see what I initially intended and what actually...

Reasonable Doubt

In Your job is to deliver code you have proven to work Simon Willison writes: As software engineers we ... need to deliver code that works — and we need to include proof that it works as well. He is coming at this from the perspective of LLM-assisted coding, but most of what he says applies in general. I think this is a reasonable consise summary of his requirements for developers: Manual happy paths: get the system into an initial state, exercise the code, check that it has the desired effect on the state. Manual edge cases: no advice given, just a note that skill here is a sign of a senior engineer. Automated tests: should demonstrate the change like Manual happy paths but also fail if the change is reverted. He notes that, even though LLM tooling can write automated tests, it's humans who are accountable for the code and it's on us to "include evidence that it works as it should." Coincidentally, just the week before I read his post I told one of my...

On Herding Cats

Last night I was at the Cambridge Tester meetup for a workshop on leadership. It was a two-parter with Drew Pontikis facilitating conversation about workplace scenarios followed by an AMA with a group of experienced managers. I can't come to work this week, my cat died. Drew opened by asking us what our first thoughts would be as managers on seeing that sentence. Naturally, sadness and sympathy, followed by a week ? for a cat ? and I only got a day for my gran! Then practicalities such as maybe there's company policy that covers that , and then the acknowledgement that it's contextual: perhaps this was a long-time emotional support animal . Having established that management decisions are a mixture of emotion, logic, and contingency Drew noted that most of us don't get training in management or leadership then split us into small groups and confronted us with three situations to talk through: Setting personal development goals for others. Dropping a clange...

Great Shot, Kid

This week I've been playing with altwalker , a model-based testing tool. To get the hang of it, I attempted to build a very simple model of a workflow that is supported by the service my team owns. Hacking away at the example code, and looking frequently at the docs, I was able to get up and running in a few hours, creating: a basic model: nodes for system states, edges for operations simple assertions: mainly consistency checks on the states client: HTTP client to implement the operations against the service's API I configured this so that altwalker will perform a random walk of the model, starting state data is randomised, and the client will choose randomly whenever offered an option. Why so much randomness? Because it means that, over successive runs, more of the infinite space of possible workflow executions will be covered. Once I had that basically working I wrote a shell script that would run this loop a number of times: call altwalker ...

Bottom-up or Top-down?

The theme at LLEWT this year was Rules and constraints to ensure better quality. My experience report concerned a team I'd been on for several years which developed (bottom-up) a set of working practices that we called team agreements. The agreements survived "natural" variation such as people leaving and joining and even some structural reorganisation which preserved most of the team members but changed the team's responsibilities or merged in a few people from a disbanded team. The agreements did not, however, persist through a significant round of (top-down) redundancies where the team was merged with two others. I'm interested in thinking about the ways in which constraints on how people work affect the work and whether there are patterns that could help us to apply the right kinds of constraints at times they are likely to be useful. I'm going to use this post to dump my thoughts. My starting po...

LLEWT 2024

This weekend I was at LLEWT 2024, a peer conference on Anglesey , north Wales, discussing communication. Given the day jobs of the participants, it was no surprise that the experience reports and the conversations that followed them mostly focussed on software development contexts. Notes from my presentation are in Express, Listen, and Field . I made sketchnotes (below) for each presentation and a mindmap (above) to try to summarise the whole. Without much reflection yet, I guess I would pull these common high-level threads from the day: There are multiple reasons that communication fails ... like, duh! ... but having multiple strategies for framing a message can help ... and having multiple tactics for delivering a message can help too. Understanding what you want from an interaction is key ... so setting the context to make that more likely is wise ... which might mean meta-conversation, being transparent, or changing your approach...

Exploring It!

This week the test team at Linguamatics held our first internal conference. There was no topic, but three broad categories could be seen in the talks and workshops that were given: experience reports, tooling, and alternative perspectives on our work. (The latter included the life cycle of a bug, and psychology in testing.) My contribution was an experience report looking at how I explore both inside and outside of testing. I've tidied up some of my notes from the prep for it below. There are testing skills that I use elsewhere in my life. Or perhaps there are skills from my life that I bring to testing. Maybe I'm so far down life's road that it's hard to tell quite what started where? Maybe I'm naturally this way and becoming a tester with an interest in improvement amped things up? Maybe I've so tangled up my work, life, and hobby that deciding where one starts and another ends is problematic? The answers to those questions is, I think, almost certai...

Hiccupps

Search This Blog