From: guest13@acsu.buffalo.edu (Javaid Aslam)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: ON OVER-SPECIFICATION OF SKILLS & EXPERIENCES
Keywords: evaluation criteria, creativity, learning, reliability
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:04:52 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo



          On Over-Specification of the Skills & Experiences
            -----------------------------------------------

        I suppose everyone would agree that  human  beings  are  far
   more intelligent than computers. But often the employers call for
   an experience which does not conform to this  fact.  Quite  often
   the  "specs"  for  a prospective employee sound like "this system
   must have an ansi compiler  version  xx.yy",  with  N  successful
   runs.  Moreover,  one  should  notice  that,  a compiler does not
   become any smarter by its repeated use  (except  perhaps  finding
   some  bugs  and  hopefully  getting  rid  of them, subject to the
   intervention of some wise human being.).  Similar scenario may be
   true  for  many  sw  engineers  working  8-10  years, essentially
   playing the role of a HL code  generator.   My  question  to  the
   employers concerned about quality, creativity and production rate
   in their organization is-- How accurate  is  such  a  metric  for
   evaluation?  Is it possible that most employers are using a first
   order approximation for evaluation which, over the life-cycle  of
   any  feasible project, might not be significantly more profitable
   than the decision made by "tossing a coin"?  Or even worse,  many
   of  the present sw engineers might become jobless in just another
   10 years, because their jobs could be mostly done by some HL code
   generators!

        Suppose a person has some  experience,  say  1-2  years,  in
   software   design/development  in  a  set  L  of  fairly  diverse
   languages, and has proved the skills in structured and  efficient
   designs,  then  why  he/she  be considered disqualified for a job
   that requires design/programming in a language x  not  in  L  but
   quite similar to some y in L?  The managers may be very concerned
   about the instant production, but do they examine  the  trade-off
   between  the  initial   (say  3-4  weeks)  overhead  (in terms of
   relatively lower  productivity)  and  the  quality  and  rate  of
   production over the next 2-3 years?  I do not understand why some
   minor differences in syntax/semantics of  a  language/environment
   are  viewed  as  so  very  crucial!   What  is the purpose of the
   "training" received in academic institutions?

        One also needs to examine whether the number of years  shows
   a  monotonic  increase  in the depth of understanding, creativity
   and skills. IF SOMEBODY (a sw engineer, for instance) IS  BEATING
   THE SAME DEAD DOG FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, then what benefit can be
   derived out of such an experience?  I have met some  10-15  years
   experienced   programmers  who  do not understand some very basic
   programming concepts such as static  storage  allocation  by  the
   compiler  for  very  simple data structures such as 2-D arrays of
   scalars.   Any  one  who  has  worked  for  4-5  years   on   one
   language/system,  ought  to  have  grown  up  beyond the standard
   paradigms available in that environment. Is it not  important  to
   examine  the  diversity  of  skills  and  a track record of self-
   education which  can provide  good indices to the person's  quick
   learning and problem solving ability?  With the on-going research
   in automatic programming, it may be  only  a  question  of  time,
   perhaps  as  early as in the next decade, that most of present sw
   engineers will be replaceable by an  appropriate  HL  (automatic)
   code  generator.  Which  company will then provide employment for
   these sw engineers?

        At the best one can say  --  there  is  certainly  something
   wrong   with   either   the   industries  or  with  the  academic
   institutions. The worst case could be  interpreted  as  both  the
   academic institutions as well as the industries are guilty in the
   sense that they do  not  complement  each  other.  Why  many  PhD
   holders  are  reluctant  to  go to an industrial environment? Why
   have (most ) industrial environments not  been  able  to  make  a
   significant  contribution to the science of technology?  Why have
   academic degrees lost their significance?  Why is  there  such  a
   big  gap  in  the  theory and practice of applied sciences? Why a
   country like Japan does not go through the unending recession  as
   in  United  States,  nor it has to deal with the severe lay-offs?
   Why are the  Japanese  cars  (and  for  that  matter  many  other
   engineering  equipments)  continue  to  be  more reliable? Is the
   issue of reliability limited to the cars only?  In Spite  of  all
   the  tough  laws  against drunk driving, why are more than 70% of
   the fatal accidents still caused by drunk driving?  Would  anyone
   care  to  see  the "ingredients" common to the "poor reliability"
   and the "accidents"? It  seems  personal  fun  &  pleasure  takes
   precedence over all other values. The pursuit for instant results
   has been  dominating  over  long  term  goals.  The  contemporary
   evaluation  (of  any  potential  employee) criteria seems to be a
   victim of the fundamental issues raised in the  above  questions.
   This  recession,  I believe, was (or still is?) only a reflection
   of the many  deep  rooted  problems.   It  certainly  was  not  a
   "qualifying  exam",  nor  there  is  any evidence of passing this
   exam!