How to test the competence of Access Developer job applicants?

[Richard Sherratt]

One of my customers is about to create several new positions for
internal Access Developers. These are not professional developers who
could sell their services on the open market, but more like advanced
user support people who can develop simple databases for their users.
I've been coaching one of these guys and have got him to the stage
where he's able to generate Word and Excel documents and then attach
them to Outlook email messages. Nothing particularly advanced, but
more than you'd expect from the average user who can develop, say, a
membership list for his local club.

The customer is not a technical guy, but he want's to be able to test
candidates and determine who can cut code and who is a user/developer.
He's thinking of a 30 minute test as part of the interview process.
He's needs an objective rating rather than a subjective assessment.
It's a govt. dept. and unsuccessful applicants can appeal if they
think they were wronged.

I was thinking of getting them to develop a simple form, but with
elements that need a moderate knowledge of VBA.

Any ideas?

--
Regards.
Richard.

[lylefair]

One problem with tests is that they often ask questions about the
basics. Basics are basics, but they are not always the best way to do
things.
Hands up, please! How many use "OpenArgs". I never do.

My suggestion to test the competence applicants: Photocopy ten of the
most recent technical posts from CDMA shortly before the interviews.
Give each applicant a copy to peruse before the interview. Ask him/her
to comment on one or more posts of interest.

[Rick Brandt]

<ly******@yahoo .ca> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ g44g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

One problem with tests is that they often ask questions about the
basics. Basics are basics, but they are not always the best way to do
things.
Hands up, please! How many use "OpenArgs". I never do.

My suggestion to test the competence applicants: Photocopy ten of the
most recent technical posts from CDMA shortly before the interviews.
Give each applicant a copy to peruse before the interview. Ask him/her
to comment on one or more posts of interest.

I would not think a person incompetent who didn't use OpenArgs. I likely would
think them incompetent if they didn't know what it was.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[rkc]

Rick Brandt wrote:

I would not think a person incompetent who didn't use OpenArgs. I likely would
think them incompetent if they didn't know what it was.

I would question their competence if they knew what it was, used it
regularly, but didn't know how to pass more than one value. You see
it all the time in this ng.

[David W. Fenton]

rkc <rk*@rochester. yabba.dabba.do. rr.bomb> wrote in
news:Dw******** ***********@twi ster.nyroc.rr.c om:

Rick Brandt wrote:

I would not think a person incompetent who didn't use OpenArgs.
I likely would think them incompetent if they didn't know what it
was.

I would question their competence if they knew what it was, used
it regularly, but didn't know how to pass more than one value. You
see it all the time in this ng.

Ack, to me, that's exactly what's *wrong* with OpenArgs, is because
people tend to latch onto it as the only way to pass information
into a form, ignoring other possibilities, like opening the form
hidden and changing properties before revealing it, or using custom
public form properties and methods to set up the form before
revealing it, or, better than all of these, using some kind of data
storage structure outside the form to get the multiple pieces of
information to it (a custom collection, an array or a class module;
I prefer the latter).

Of course, if you ask "explain what OpenArgs is, what you consider
the pros and cons of its use to be, and what are alternatives to
using it?" then I'd think you'd asked a very good question.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[rkc]

David W. Fenton wrote:

rkc <rk*@rochester. yabba.dabba.do. rr.bomb> wrote in
news:Dw******** ***********@twi ster.nyroc.rr.c om:

Rick Brandt wrote:

I would not think a person incompetent who didn't use OpenArgs.
I likely would think them incompetent if they didn't know what it
was.

I would question their competence if they knew what it was, used
it regularly, but didn't know how to pass more than one value. You
see it all the time in this ng.

Ack, to me, that's exactly what's *wrong* with OpenArgs, is because
people tend to latch onto it as the only way to pass information
into a form, ignoring other possibilities, like opening the form
hidden and changing properties before revealing it, or using custom
public form properties and methods to set up the form before
revealing it, or, better than all of these, using some kind of data
storage structure outside the form to get the multiple pieces of
information to it (a custom collection, an array or a class module;
I prefer the latter).

I couldn't agree more, but code examples that treat a form as an
object are as few and far between as those that aren't completely
coded in some kind of gui event handler. If you're a copy and paste
artist that's what you end up doing.

[Richard Sherratt]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:09:34 -0230, Tim Marshall
<TI****@PurpleP andaChasers.Moe rtherium> wrote:

Richard Sherratt wrote:

One of my customers is about to create several new positions for
internal Access Developers. These are not professional developers who
could sell their services on the open market, but more like advanced
user support people who can develop simple databases for their users.
Difficult, because at this level of user, there are so many different
areas with which they could be familiar or not. What might be a simple
test to you or I may indeed be simple to some of these potential
candidates, while to others it may be something they've never, ever done
before.

Further, anyone who's ever done an interview before as the interviewee
or interviewer knows that these things are stressful for the
interviewee. If your requirements are for an Armed Services or police
officer or someone who will be able to develop something within 30
minutes while under the gun, ie, be able to perform and think clearly
under extreme stress, then by all means do some kind of test, but I
wouldn't recommend it.

The candidates will be public servants. Some of them will be ex Armed
Forces or police officers.
My recommendation would be to have the potential applicants do something
beforehand and then show you their work. When I've interviewed for
civil/electrical/mechanical engineering positions, it's this sort of
approach I prefer, because in those areas potential areas of experience
is vast. You could have the applicants show you how they put stuff
together and you could at the same time look to see how well a person
documents his/her code, if they are consistent in formatting, etc.

The public service rules say that I cannot be involved in the actual
interview or assessment of the interview. The decision makers are
non-technical and are conscious that they could not evaluate the
technical skills of the candidates in an appeal-proof way without some
sort of go/no go or numerical scale test.

It's a tough one.

--
Regards.
Richard.

[Richard Sherratt]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:57:57 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote:

Richard Sherratt <ri************ **@NOTHINGHEREb runsley.com.au> wrote
in news:id******** *************** *********@4ax.c om:

I was thinking of getting them to develop a simple form, but with
elements that need a moderate knowledge of VBA.

One think you might be able to do is give them some problems and ask
them how they'd solve them, in words. This kind of question allows
someone to correctly answer a question they'd have to do research on
to actually implement.

What you're looking for, it seems to me, are not people who already
know everything about Access, but people who understand it well
enough to learn to do the things you'll need them to do. If you
design your interview process to find out who is a problem solver
and knows how to think, you won't need to worry about exactly which
things they already know how to do when they walk in the door.

That makes sense. Everything would be simple if I could be part of the
interview process.

--
Regards.
Richard.

[Mike Preston]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:17:07 GMT, Richard Sherratt
<ri************ **@NOTHINGHEREb runsley.com.au> wrote:

It's a tough one.

Indeed it is.

But it sounds to me like you want to use a test to filter out those
that:

1) are less knowledgeable

and

2) have bad habits.

A series of t/f questions should get you close.

Things like:

Question 1) I am familiar with the Access term "OpenArgs" and know how
to implement it when appropriate.

Question 2) I am familiar with the Access term "CloseArgs" and know
how to implement it when appropriate.

Question 63) I can pass information to a query using OpenArgs

Question 64) I can pass information to a form using OpenArgs

Question 65) I can pass information to the subroutine "basFindRec ord"
using the vba command: docmd.OpenArgs (basFindRecord, "MyOpenArgs ")

Question 134) Before deciding whether to use OpenArgs I would first
see if the information is already stored and available in another open
and visible form.

Question 135) Before deciding whether to use OpenArgs I would first
see if the information is already stored and available in another open
but not visible form

How long can you make this thing? I'd think something like 1,500 or
so T/F questions should get you something with statistical
significance. <g,d&r>

But I'm serious about the format. If you can't be involved I can't
see any other way to establish a ranking of candidates.

Of course, it really should be an Access program so that a particular
T/F answer branches to a specific set of questions. In this way, if
someone answers the first few wrong (or enough wrong) you can just
route them to the:

"Thank you for your participation. Your results have been forwarded."

screen.

Of course, you might have requirements that preclude variable testing
and, if so, then everybody must be given the same questions. But I
can see this being quite the interesting project.

Good luck,

mike

[David W. Fenton]

Richard Sherratt <ri************ **@NOTHINGHEREb runsley.com.au> wrote
in news:25******** *************** *********@4ax.c om:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:57:57 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bw ay.net.invalid> wrote:

Richard Sherratt <ri************ **@NOTHINGHEREb runsley.com.au>
wrote in news:id******** *************** *********@4ax.c om:

I was thinking of getting them to develop a simple form, but
with elements that need a moderate knowledge of VBA.

One think you might be able to do is give them some problems and
ask them how they'd solve them, in words. This kind of question
allows someone to correctly answer a question they'd have to do
research on to actually implement.

What you're looking for, it seems to me, are not people who
already know everything about Access, but people who understand it
well enough to learn to do the things you'll need them to do. If
you design your interview process to find out who is a problem
solver and knows how to think, you won't need to worry about
exactly which things they already know how to do when they walk in
the door.

That makes sense. Everything would be simple if I could be part of
the interview process.

Oops. I didn't realize there was a brain-dead HR department involved
that wasn't going to have subject specialists present at the
interviews.

Surely the final round of interviews would involve you or somebody
who has enough knowledge to ask the questions you'd ask?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

Richard Sherratt <ri************ **@NOTHINGHEREb runsley.com.au> wrote
in news:if******** *************** *********@4ax.c om:

The public service rules say that I cannot be involved in the
actual interview or assessment of the interview. The decision
makers are non-technical and are conscious that they could not
evaluate the technical skills of the candidates in an appeal-proof
way without some sort of go/no go or numerical scale test.

It's a tough one.

Sounds like process that's been designed on purpose to guarantee
that the most qualified applicant is not hired.

What stupid, stupid rules.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc