- Thread starter
- #6
Latest update:
It dawned on me that the contractors I eventually select will have a very direct and dramatic effect on the outcome of my product. This caused me to pause and consider how best to make the selection. I thought I might share that process with the forum.
It is quite apparent, if one bothers to look at the available data, that most hiring practices are quite unscientific and have little to do with qualifications. Resumes are terrible at portraying talents and shortcomings. Interviews are really just short popularity contests. And even after hiring, not many companies make much of an effort to review how effective their hiring process truly is.
With this in mind, I was determined to figure out a better way.
First and foremost, I wanted a company which had the expertise to develop my product. My initial round of interviews was filled with questions which were specifically designed to invite a candidate to show knowledge or the ability to spew bullshit. I researched the various companies as much as I could. I looked at some of the other products they had been involved with. All of this was largely along the same path as is typically taken.
Finally, I decided that I should change my goal. Even though it adds to the expense in the short run, I chose to select three companies to perform a short duration exploratory contract. The purpose of the contract was to answer a seemingly simple question: Is it possible to develop the product I have described to you (the companies) and if so, can it be done securely?
By awarding this contract to all three of my finalists, I have increased my costs. However, the results I have obtained from this process is well worth the extra cost.
First, I discovered a number of different ways to solve the problem of my product development. Since the IP is ultimately mine, I am now able to share the results of a wider distribution of minds with the ultimately chosen team.
Second, the quality and expertise of the various teams was brought to the surface in real terms. Rather than relying on my gut feeling, resumes, and interviews, I now had tangible results showing exactly what sort of work these teams produced. The creativity and excitement of some teams was unmistakable.
Most importantly, by investing a relatively small amount on the front side, I have been able to narrow my selection to a single company based on actual results, potentially saving me from a subpar product.
It dawned on me that the contractors I eventually select will have a very direct and dramatic effect on the outcome of my product. This caused me to pause and consider how best to make the selection. I thought I might share that process with the forum.
It is quite apparent, if one bothers to look at the available data, that most hiring practices are quite unscientific and have little to do with qualifications. Resumes are terrible at portraying talents and shortcomings. Interviews are really just short popularity contests. And even after hiring, not many companies make much of an effort to review how effective their hiring process truly is.
With this in mind, I was determined to figure out a better way.
First and foremost, I wanted a company which had the expertise to develop my product. My initial round of interviews was filled with questions which were specifically designed to invite a candidate to show knowledge or the ability to spew bullshit. I researched the various companies as much as I could. I looked at some of the other products they had been involved with. All of this was largely along the same path as is typically taken.
Finally, I decided that I should change my goal. Even though it adds to the expense in the short run, I chose to select three companies to perform a short duration exploratory contract. The purpose of the contract was to answer a seemingly simple question: Is it possible to develop the product I have described to you (the companies) and if so, can it be done securely?
By awarding this contract to all three of my finalists, I have increased my costs. However, the results I have obtained from this process is well worth the extra cost.
First, I discovered a number of different ways to solve the problem of my product development. Since the IP is ultimately mine, I am now able to share the results of a wider distribution of minds with the ultimately chosen team.
Second, the quality and expertise of the various teams was brought to the surface in real terms. Rather than relying on my gut feeling, resumes, and interviews, I now had tangible results showing exactly what sort of work these teams produced. The creativity and excitement of some teams was unmistakable.
Most importantly, by investing a relatively small amount on the front side, I have been able to narrow my selection to a single company based on actual results, potentially saving me from a subpar product.