On 18 June 2012 21:55, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2012 20:58, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
But Tom M. hit the nail on the head: don't go the dogsbody route. I.e. if anyone argues as Tom D. does, which strikes me as reasonable, don't define the job in such a way as to offer zero career development. Make it a real job, from the start. Make it so the growth of the work actually looks like an opportunity for the hire to grow also.
This is a good point. It's important to think about what the long-term future of the position is. I can see two things this role could become. There's the plan Mike's mentioned, of them specialising in the area(s) they are strongest in and other tech people being hired to take over their other responsibilities and the work and budget grows. Alternatively, they can be hired with the intention that they will become the Head of Technology and will be responsible for growing their team over time.
The second route means paying more (have you to pay a manager's wage even when they don't have anyone to manage), but it is potentially more efficient and straightforward in the long run. It also removes the uncomfortable situation of hiring someone to be the boss of someone that has been around for a while (if the intention is to have multiple people working on tech stuff then sooner or later there will need to be a Head of Technology).
Yes, this is basically what I am driving at. If the long term aim is to expand the department we should outline those goals *now* and hire someone with those goals at the forefront. Although I'd suggest you have a better chance of getting a competent person at the current budget - a role in which they have remit to build and manage a tech department is quite an interesting prospect.
Hiring a developer for a broad role for the pure fact of "we need one" is a poor decision, I know this from observing it happen. We'd end up with someone likely unable to build such a department - and if they become redundant with next years plan/budget then what point is there?
Mike's email gives a lot of useful context to this discussion; Mike I'll drop you a message off-wiki and I will be happy to chat by phone tomorrow or whenever. I still think effort needs to go into an actual tech strategy so we can have a proper role for when someone is hired, but I appreciate the need to take some of the load off Mike :)
To be explicit; we have lots of bits on wiki about "stuff" such a person can do. But no strategic document outlining year-on-year aims, and giving an overview of the skills needed. I suggest we desperately need to do that first rather than waste money by hurrying into a hire we don't fully understand long term. I've given my viewpoint on what we need here - but I also admit it could be wrong (as with all the other views) purely because we lack this strategy.
If that means people like me putting their time where their mouth is and taking some of the current load then fine :)
Tom