One of the real problems with SharePoint roles advertised on the internet is that they are often lazy and consequently ineffectual. I was looking at one today that simply said “SharePoint administrator required must be available immediately”. Now even to the uninitiated this tells me very little, if indeed, anything at all. If I was a potential applicant I would want to know as much as possible about the role to bother applying, but actually in this case, I probably wouldn’t want to apply at all unless I was really desperate for work, which I am not.
I often see mistakes in SharePoint job ads such as incorrect terminology which is off-putting. Therefore when I see terms such as “must be an expert in NOSS (!) as well as Shared Point, and WSS would be useful” I start to wonder whether the person placing the ad actually understands the platform and skill set in question and if they do not, what hope is there that they will represent me well as an agent. If it is a client advertising directly I can forgive them but it also indicates to me that the client does not understand the technology they are recruiting for and therefore I anticipate challenges over job description, rates, and responsibilities.
We are now seeing specialist SharePoint divisions within a number of high profile recruitment companies and that brings great joy but the issue remains that the job advert must be detailed enough to attract the right quality candidates.
In writing a good SharePoint role ad it is first of all essential that the client is grilled for all available information and this is then sensibly transferred into a well written SharePoint role description. It is often the case that the client themselves does not know exactly what kind of person they are looking for and may be unaware of SharePoint skills required and this often reveals why a MOSS administrator or a SharePoint developer are listed who are also required to be able to build the server farm. A good example was recently when I spotted a SharePoint Project Manager/Business Analyst role –which is it – one or the other, and if they are combined, why?
A .net developer is not necessarily the same as a SharePoint developer, a MOSS administrator is not the same as technical architect. Many SharePoint technical architects are not developers also and even if they were, they don’t. If it is a green field deployment why is the client looking for developers at this stage? A SharePoint project manager is not the same as a SharePoint business analyst and when we see combined skill sets it sends out a clear signal that the client doesn’t understand the platform, or of they do, and is trying to deliver something on the cheap by using the one-contractor-does-all tactic. Visual Studio and SharePoint Designer products are not the same thing, C sharp isn’t always a pre-requisite for development and workflow could mean a plethora of different things. So once again it is essential you can translate the technical requirements of a role into an effective role description.
Now you may argue that this is the fault of a client being insistent but not always, A client is usually reliant on good advice, especially from recruiters and as such they rely heavily on advice and assistance regarding SharePoint roles and job descriptions as well as rate expectations. If you are not offering this advice then this will be reflected in the quality of the SharePoint job advert and its content.
Okay so let’s move things along. What do I want to see in a SharePoint job advert that is of high quality that attracts the right candidates to the right SharePoint roles? Let me summarize for my views you by first dealing with background information you should have gathered:
- I want to know that you know what SharePoint is and what it’s going to be used for, from the client
- I want to know how big the SharePoint user community is going to be
- It would be useful to know what sector we are dealing with
- I want to know that the skills required actually match the SharePoint job description
- I want to know if it is a local single farm deployment or a global multi farm deployment
- I want to know if budgets are set and early business analysis has occurred
- It would be useful to know if the client has a business objective or a business strategy in place
- I want to know of the client understands the likely budget cost of deployment
- I would like to know if the client has a support team in place or will have one in future
- I want to know if there are any integration tasks that are included
- I want to know if standard or enterprise licensing will be employed
- I want to know timescales and judge whether they are realistic and whether it is likely to roll on and for how long
- I particularly want to know if we are dealing with a failed deployment and if so why and to what degree
- I would also like to know if Office 2007 and Outlook 2007 are being used or are being deployed
Now it is likely I am not going to read all this in a job description but this information should be kept to hand for any telephone discussions and subsequent interviews. The more you can find out in advance the faster it will be to match the correct person to the correct MOSS role.
I would want to know the answers to at least some of these questions because this will affect the reality of how successful my SharePoint skills will be in relation to the advertised role and I will also be able to adjudge both the realistic rate match and the likely success of the SharePoint project as a whole. The truth is that a SharePoint project that needs rescuing may require a higher rate than a green field deployment.
Now some candidates simply may not care and simply be keen to get their next role and in this recruitment climate I cannot blame them but fitting the wrong person into the wrong SharePoint role will perpetuate the current issue of failing deployments through badly equipped and wrongly matched resources. This is why I write these articles, to try and prevent this occurring.
So what should the ad contain?
- A clear and definitive single SharePoint role that matches commonly accepted industry role titles – combinations cause confusion and mismatching
- A clear description of not only what is required but in what respect and using what aspects of SharePoint and associated technologies. The idea that one person fits all in the SharePoint world quite frankly currently doesn’t exist and if it did – you couldn’t afford them
- A clear description of what the business challenge is and the timescales afforded the SharePoint solution
- A realistic expectation of experience which matches rate offered. Listing ‘market rate’ hoping to knock someone down on fees doesn’t really work.
- An avoidance of making the job appear like a ‘wish list’ of skills because this is unrealistic
Okay so the next step is to translate what you do know into an effective SharePoint job description. Let us look at a confusing one and then let us finish on a very good example to give you some inspiration:
The Confusing:
MOSS business analyst/administrator
To reinforce our Microsoft .NET & MOSS 2007 practice, we are looking for an experienced MOSS consultant an understanding of business analysis & proven knowledge of technical administration.
Responsibilities
You will be part of the business analysis teams & take on project management responsibilities on particular projects. You will be responsible for functional specifications, implementation & project plans & proposals for specific implementations. You will write documentation and provide high-level consulting skills from a technical & functional perspective.
You will be responsible for the configuration of the software, writing test cases, creating new business models as well as technical design, task estimation, team-building and quality of the technical implementation.
You will mentor the project team by providing technical assistance and direction to the project team regarding specifications, design issues, development guidelines and testing; you will also participate in the definition and delivery of project deliverables according to the project plan.
Profile
• Must have a good understanding of the technical & functional skills pertaining to a project.
• Technologies: It is imperative that you have worked with Microsoft SharePoint Server 2007.
• Business Analysis tools: UML, test case definitions
• Strong academic background in a relevant field.
At least 6 months experience working in a similar project or with these technologies
My Comment
At first view this looks like a good SharePoint ad but it doesn’t take long to spot some real issues. We have numerous job titles within this single ad for what is a single role that it immediately makes me wonder exactly who or what this ad is trying to find. The advert asks for a business analyst in MOSS, a technical administrator in MOSS and a few lines further down a consultant in MOSS. We can see that the person is also required to configure MOSS but to what degree and in what aspects of SharePoint we are not told.
In fact there are so many varied and vague elements to the description that I can only presume they are looking for a MOSS expert who is asked to do everything include mentor and lead the team – the problem is I suspect that this doesn’t quite match the original title or expected remuneration. In fact as a spectator I start to wonder exactly what is going on here and I find it highly off-putting. I am not sure how you match MOSS to an academic background in a relevant field either because I don’t know what the job actually is. Finally 6 months experience is NO way long enough to be effective in this (or these) role(s).
Okay so let’s finish with a better ad that I could be inspired by and which may attract the right candidates. I was pressed hard to find one but:
SharePoint Consultant Contract
A SharePoint Consultant with extensive/advanced skills in SharePoint Designer is required to work on an initial 3 month contract based in Woking, Surrey. You will be responsible for carrying out a client facing position, in developing within an iterative/prototyping environment as well as a .NET environment. Experience of MOSS 2007, with team sites, Websites, workflow and InfoPath are required with advanced skills in Microsoft SharePoint Designer 2007.
My Comment
Though the ad is far from perfect and wasn’t spell checked (because if it had been they would have noted that SharePoint has a capital P as does InfoPath), it actually tells the story as best it can. The technology references are generally correct, they list enough of relevance to instil confidence, we know how long the role is for and we can see pretty much what the person may be required to do. The issue I have is that the role isn’t really a for a SharePoint consultant, it is more a prototype administrator with consulting skills who can take a concept and build it. The skill range is a bit unrealistic in that they have dropped in workflow as a wish list but at least I would feel confident that they have some idea of what they want. It is interesting that they didn’t mention Visual Studio; perhaps that is the real giveaway ;)
And finally, I have to admit I performed some searches for ‘SharePoint project manager’ and ‘SharePoint technical architect’ and so on this evening and I could not find more than one or two well written SharePoint job ads amongst the many listed. Many were so vague that I didn’t know what the actual role was, many extolled the virtues of the client as a ‘leading gold partner’ but said very little about the actual job itself, many were so low regarding rates that they discounted themselves and many referred to ‘market rate’ which can be easily interpreted as ‘as cheap as possible’. It is clear there is still much to do on this subject then...
