On 18 June 2012 21:55, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 June 2012 20:58, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)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