Related
I've been spending a considerable amount of time learning MongoDB as part of the MEAN stack (I'm new to the MEAN stack), and I feel like I'm just barely starting to get the hang of it. Recently, however, my supervisor at work (who's an experienced programmer) suggested I learn relational databases (it could be that it's used by more companies), and I have taken his suggestion to heart since I'm only a junior developer, and would like to move up soon. My personal goal/project is to build a social networking site where one group of users have the ability to search for another group of users (and most likely charge a membership fee). Would the database matter for a project like this? I would love to kill two birds with one stone by learning something (and learning it really well) that could be used in my personal project, and in a professional job.
I'm certainly open to learning more than one language, but I need a starting point, so I need something that will help me accomplish my personal goal. Since I've spent a considerable amount of time with JavaScript (as oppose to, say, Python), having to learn relational databases concerns me. Are there any downsides to just sticking to MongoDB?
Thanks in advance!
The first thing you need is to assess what type of data you are going to deal with (will it be structured, easily represented by tables, or it will be more of the non-structured type).
If structured, RDBMS is the way to go.
Incidentally, as far as I know, the first versions of Facebook were implemented using MySQL (the type of DBMS your boss was referring to).
Farid, as you're a junior programmer, I'd suggest you to learn as much as possible of both approach.
The knowledge acquired on one of them will also help you getting the most from the other (as they both concern data, how to structure it and how to query it).
Also, in the day by day job (unless you specialize only in large sites where scalability is the first concern) you might encounter RDBMS more frequently than NoSQL choices.
Both technologies have pro and cons and, unless you know both sides (at least documenting yourself, if not by direct experience) you might go for one solution when the other could have been preferable.
Well, anyone have concern about learn SQL (and use JOIN), but:
One day, you don't know how, you will use it (or understand it), so perhaps is better take a moment for SQL (it's the most widespread)
MongoDB is good if you development a REST service, but if you want make a social network like project, perhaps is better look at Graph database.
Perhaps that video can help, is an overview of SQL vs NoSQL.
Has anyone heard of Chaperon? is it effective in preventing code theft?
Now i understand that there can be many ways if someone was to steal code and there is nothing that could be completely foolproof, so please don't give me this as an answer.
I want to know how effective this is and how does this utility/software exactly work?
Are there any other tools that are similar to this one?
It is the wrong question to ask. See Secure collaborative software development environment in the cloud
Why would you want to work with people you don't trust? The costs of organizing the control needed to make that effective are so large that your efficiency would be too low to survive in the market.
The reason that Chaperon doesn't have much competition is simply that there is no market. Start using it, go out of business fast.
One strong thing to consider when implementing any "code theft prevention" scheme is the fact that you're willingly trading productivity for security. The most productive environment for creating and debugging code is an open and easily shared one. This is why there are millions of lines of Open Source code written every year, even though most people involved aren't being paid for it.
Consider carefully whether the increased overhead and costs in terms of developer time is worth the theoretical potential for theft by one of your developers, who is already familiar with your algorithms and architecture, and could probably re-create the code if it was really something worth stealing.
Now, protecting your source code repositories from external access, and protecting your code "in transit" from people external to your development group who might be stealing it really boils down to Network Security, and you'd probably be better off posting it on serverfault.com or superuser.com
You can't effectively do what you're asking, especially in an environment where you don't trust the people working there.
A proper solution is to build a business model that is robust in the face of someone else getting the software. If as you say the “work ethics are unreliable”, you should count on the software getting spread around anyway.
Don't rely on artificial scarcity of the software – especially if, as you say, you can't trust your staff to maintain that scarcity – instead, rely on being the people who know the most about it.
I think all that can be done is monitor in situations like this. Firewall network. Deny https traffic. So users can not securely upload. Have softwares that email/log when external I/O devices are plugged.
Fire people whom you cant trust if that is an option.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
If you have a room full of capable developers, what can be done to encourage those developers to become excited and enthusiastic about software and software development?
No gimmicks, but a genuine move to create an environment where people want to work in software, not just because the company is a good company to work for overall.
In my opinion, the absolute, #1, most essential thing that motivates developers to be enhusiastic about their work is a sense of ownership over their product. All the team-building excercises, reading groups, etc. are good but ultimately ineffective if the developers don't have a sense of ownership.
Here's a quick, off the cuff list of things that are important, in my mind, to ensuring this is the case:
Developers have a real and honest stake in the future design of the system. There will always be requirements that come from outside the development team, but developers should be represented when those requirements are discovered and be able to give real input into the future state of what you're working on.
Developer championed requirements or changes to your solution should be given a voice. A balance needs to be found, certainly, but all too many companies don't have proper mechanisms to allow pure development-focused requests to get through. These could be product enhancements, building up unit tests or simple refactorings, but they are essential to the quality of your product and for giving developers a stake in your project.
Developers should have contact with users. A development staff that's treated like the guys in the basement who churn out code are never going to have a very enthusastic approach to the product or developing their own skills.
Embrace new technologies, even if it's only for a PoC or prototype of what the technologies can do. No developer in the world has ever been excited about churning out boilerplate code, and they never will be.
Let development teams own their process. Development methodolgies decreed from on-high will without fail demotivate the development team, who now need to deal with the added burden of planning meetings and waterfall development. Require that a process exist, but until there's a problem, keep your hands off the specifics.
"Just the way things work" is NEVER an excuse for a broken process. If developers have a legitimate concern with a process they need to follow, they need a honest chance to argue against it. As a manager, one of the worst things you can say is "That's the way the VP / Executive / CEO / God wants it, so we need to follow it". You need to champion your developers concerns, or failing that, allow them direct interaction with the person in question. If you as a manager are viewed as a sockpuppet for the executive, good luck ever motivating a developer again.
Shield your developers from all the politics to the best of your ability. Let them what they do best, develop software. Nothing kills a productive team like having to squabble in inner-office politics.
This well-known conversation says it best:
Peter Gibbons: Bob, I have eight
different bosses right now.
Bob Slydell: I beg your pardon?
Peter Gibbons: Eight bosses.
Bob Slydell: Eight?
Peter Gibbons: Eight, Bob. So that
means that when I make a mistake, I
have eight different people coming by
to tell me about it. That's my only
real motivation is not to be hassled,
that and the fear of losing my job.
But you know, Bob, that will only make
someone work just hard enough not to
get fired.
Hire the Right People
During the interview process ask questions that let you see their passionate about the craft.
Some examples, Do they:
Read software books or blogs, listen to podcasts?
Play with new languages/libraries at home?
Contribute to open source projects?
Once you have good people stay out of their way. Have the right amount of process, don't force unnecessary standardization, listen to issues, be honest about reasons things are happening.
Read Peopleware by DeMarco and Lister.
I've yet to meet a capable developer who is not already excited about making great software. The trick is to stay out of their way and not destroy the natural enthusiasm.
The Joel Test is a good start.
what can be done to encourage those
developers to become excited and
enthusiastic about software and
software development?
Nothing.
A passion for software development comes from within, and cannot be created from zero. Feeding an existing passion is easy- resources, training, and a visible appreciation for that passion from management are all it takes.
The only exception may be to lead by example. If you're excited, others may follow.
UPDATE: As has been said in other answers, it's much better to hire well up front. I'd pass over ten good programmers who just want a paycheck for one good programmer who codes in his/her spare time for fun.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This answer has been jumping around with up/downvotes, so let me clarify. The OP's wording specifically asks how to make an existing team excited "about software development". It is my contention that if they are not already interested in their chosen professions, there is not much an employer can do to engender an interest. A disinterested, unmotivated team will make a mess of the most fascinating project. By contrast, a motivated team of professionals that like their jobs can make the best darned calculator program out there, and enjoy every minute of it.
Having an interesting, challenging and profitable problem to solve, where all developers have a stake in the results. If not, you have a room full of developers sticking around as long as the pay checks clear.
I have to agree a little bit with the comment made by Pascal, but I'm not going to start off that way.
Overall, it has been proven that one of the best ways to give developers an environment that allows them to like their work is to give them freedom. However, your looking at a different route here, you are trying to find "passionate" developers.
To be 100% honest there is not a direct connection to "capable" and "passionate". There are hundreds of developers out there that are capable of being programmers, and mighty good ones at that. But many of them do not have any desire to become passionate developers.
To create a team of passionate developers, you really have to start with the recruitment process and HIRE passionate developers, not try to "create" them.
For me, the things that keep me motivated are:
A problem/task that I find challenging, that I can learn from
A plan to implement the solution in a way I think is reasonable. Nothing is more de-motivating for me than a management team that forces technologies I don't believe in down my throat.
Other folks to discuss the possible solutions with, be they on the same team or not.
A management team that appreciates the hard work I'm putting in.
Just to be precise, is the question "I have a team of developers, and I want to make those specific developers enthusiastic about software development", or simply "I want a team of enthusiastic software developers"? In the latter case, simply don't hire people who aren't enthusiastic.
In the former case, you're pretty much screwed. It's hard to change someone's personality so much that they start to care about something they didn't really take an interest in before. Of course it can be done, but let's face it. How many here have been unable to convince their better half that programming is interesting? For that matter, how many people have failed to adopt their girlfriend's enthusiasm for shopping, or shoes? ;)
Convincing people to share your interest and enthusiasm for something is hard work.
Unless you're willing to set aside a few years of your life for getting into the head of each individual developer, getting to know them and what makes them tick, and gradually push and prod them towards taking an interest in something that they previously simply considered a job, you're probably better off letting them go and hiring people who are motivated to begin with.
Give them interesting problems.
Give them the means to solve those problems.
Minimize the amount of crap they have to deal with that isn't directly related to solving those problems.
Reward them for successfully solving those problems. Don't underestimate the value of a sincere pat on the back from the guy who signs your paychecks.
Give them a stake in the larger venture -- beyond the next paycheck.
And when they suggest a new problem they think is worth solving, listen.
I think the biggest thing is the company has to value what the developers can do for the company. If the company is run by cheapskates who just see your developers as an expense they can't wait to be rid of then you are doomed. The developers' team needs to be viewed by management as a strategic asset that makes them money now and will make them more money in the future.
Also good communication in the company is vital. The developers have to be able to find out what it is the company needs them to do. Autocratic top-down bureaucracy and mushroom management can wreck morale and make it impossible for developers to add value, regardless of what level of enthusiasm they brought to the job. The software your team builds will be only as good as the communication in the company--I think that is what Conway's Law is about.
So that is a big challenge, in many cases an impossible one, because senior management will have their own ideas about priorities and communication and good luck influencing them. But the alternative is guerrilla development, where you're fighting an endless battle against your own company.
money, money, money... and don't say that money doesn't matter if the project is exciting or boring routine.
You don't.
You either have people in the team that love learning and always want to push themselves to be better, or you don't have those people in your team. Of course reality is, you'd have a mixed bag.
Just employ people who are enthusiastic (it's easy to tell), and don't employ the ones who see programming/developing software as 'just' a job.
It's impossible IMO to turn complete non-enthusiasts into passionate programmers. There is no silver bullet.
In Weinbergesqe fashion:
You've asked the wrong question. The right question is "What are the things that managers do that dispirit developers and reduce moral?" Then don't tolerate those things in your environment.
And oh by the way, you should already know the answer to that question. If you don't find another job.
Hookers and blow?
How about giving them a financial stake in the outcome of their software project(s)? For example, corporate profit sharing.
That being said, passionate developers are the kind of people who go home and write software in their spare time.
Going to a software development conference with good, inspirational speakers can make a huge difference.
Read "Dynamics of Software Development" by Jim McCarthy. Seriously, nearly the entire book deals with this and related issues.
Although I agree that it is not easy (or even possible) to create passion about programming, I think it is possible to keep passionate developers enthusiastic about their work. Even the most passionate programmer developer can become disillusioned if placed in a stagnant work environment.
So what can be done?
Provide plenty of opportunity for personal development, give lots of freedom to learn new things. Let the developers have some choice in the courses they take, and the conferences they wish to attend.
Toys - Not in the traditional sense, but being able to use the latest technologies
Provide a nice place to work. It doesn't have to be Google, but it does have to be somewhere you would want to spend time.
Of course money helps. Not in the sense that a company can pay for enthusiastic staff, but people need to feel suitable rewarded for their efforts.
I have found working in an organisation that has embraced agile development has many of the correct qualities for building enthusiastic teams.
If they're fundamentally unenthusiastic about software development, there's nothing you can do.
If they're enthusiastic, that's great, and you need to avoid squelching that. There are some excellent recommendations elsewhere in these answers.
If they used to be enthusiastic, and have had that beaten out of them, you are likely to get good results by giving them reasonable challenges, shielding them from bad management, and in general treating them like valuable and respected people.
If you have a room full of capable developers, what can be done to encourage those developers to become excited and enthusiastic about software and software development
The correct question is actually "What can be done to encourage those developers to become excited and enthusiastic about software and software development in our company".
It's quite simple actually. The answer has never been a secret. It's just nobody listens to it.
Very simply elements:
Let those enthusiastic developers work among other passionate people. Remove those who don't care from the team. Otherwise they will act like diseased cells proliferating apathy and depression to the other team members.
Aspire to develop a quality and professional product
Establish a professional and effective process
Trust and respect people. Value their knowledge. Respect their opinions. Actually, it's part of a bigger strategy: let your developers be able to make a difference and let them see they can really influence and change things.
Let them grow professionally and let them see this growth is appreciated and needed by you
Now what doesn't help at all.
Pay them badly. Developers are also humans (for the most part) and they also have their bills to pay.
Reject their initiatives, proposals and improvement suggestions. Tell them each time they come up with something that their attempt to introduce change make them a foreign und unwelcome element in the company.
Have low quality product and have no interest to make it better. Hacks, copy/paste code, accumulating technical debts, things falling apart after each release, that does not motivate developers.
Have badly run development and chaotic process. Tasks, projects and small decisions taking a new vector every few days will finally remove desire to be involved from anybody. Failing schedules because of unpredicted work load and feature set, they all go down the road. It will suffice to run out of coffee some day for some of them to start moving elsewhere.
Have a boring and uninteresting social environment. Developers having nobody to talk to to share their interests will finally feel dull. Not everyone is interested in taxes, football and kindergarten issues as the only topics on social gatherings.
I am inclinced to say nothing like others have, and i must agree that a real passion for it is not something you can create, it either exists or it does not however there are things you can do.
Scoring high on Joel's test is a great start,
Fire all the PHBs and hire smart managers who maximise the chances that the software will actually be finished and work right.
A management team that knows computers and can hold their own in a technical conversation is a very helpful feature. Don't try to sell passionate developers on hype, tends and buzzwords.
Set clear and stable goals and communicate the goals accurately to the team or people. And then just get out the way to let developers get that done. Do not go far away from developers though, you need to tackle those issues like out of free food, purchase of fancy office equipments and other trivial things that developers do not care to do yet useful to improve productivity and add perks to developer team.
Dan Pink notes 3 things that motivate people if there is creativity required in a job. RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us is a 10 minute video about these but here are the 3 things:
Autonomy - Give the team control over the schedule and empower them to own their work.
Mastery - How well are they developing their craft of building excellent software.
Purpose - Why are they making this software? What massive benefit will it have?
A few other sources on this stuff:
Top Three Motivators For Developers (Hint: not money!)
Autonomy, mastery, purpose
Empowered Teams Are Dead – Long Live Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose
Why Open Is Better Than Proprietary?
Money vs Autonomy/Mastery/Purpose
Creating an Organization that Values Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose
The 3 Things That Motivate Us
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
I'm wondering what you do as a programmer that's not programming but necessary for your task (eg: local setup, server setup, deployment, etc). I'm curious to know how many non-programming related tasks people are performing.
For example, when on web development projects I often:
Install servers
Manage user right/access to servers
Perform backups
Configure IIS/Apache
Setup FTP sites
On non-web projects I often:
Write build scripts
Setup source code management tools/procedures
Probably more stuff I'm not thinking of
Some tasks are more related to programming than others (such as writing build scripts) but others fall outside of my area of expertise (domain setup comes to mind). Just interested to know how many people perform tasks in their jobs that are not programming related.
The sad reality is that non-technical people look at technical people and expect them to know everything that is technology related, not understanding that there are specializations within technology which we might know nothing about.
I often think it is very much like a doctor that specializes in a particular discipline. All doctors have a baseline of knowledge in the medical field, but will not know the specifics of other specializations (a cardiologist will not know as much about anesthesiology and vice versa).
So while I think it is unreasonable for people to expect technologists to know everything, I do think that it is reasonable for them to expect that we know something when it comes to technology.
I think a more important facet of this question is how much one is expected to know about the specific domain where they apply their skills (finance, manufacturing, etc, etc). I think that is incredibly important, as having that domain knowledge makes them much more valuable as a programmer, as they can understand the problems on a deep level, and as a result, provide more comprehensive solutions for them.
Expected? Almost nothing, but everyone's always really happy when you know more.
The more you know outside the narrow confines of programming, the more valuable you are to your employer.
Things that have come up for me:
requirements gathering
writing use cases
evaluating test plans
negotiating with vendors
tax law
revenue recognition rules
ideas about how users behave
basic economic theory
usability guidelines
differences in consumer behavior in different countries
system administration (being a full on sysadmin)
database configuration, optimization, setup (basically being a DBA)
monitoring systems
networking principles and techniques (you'd be amazed how handy a packet trace can be when debugging something...)
being able to evaluate a business plan written by someone else
image manipulation
how to diffuse a situation and avoid arguments
how to corner someone and make them to commit to something when they don't want to
how to choose battles
I think the non-programming skill I use the most in my programming job is writing. It's really crucial to be able to explain ideas, designs, algorithms, and so on, and you can never count on being around to do it in person (or having the time). I spend a good amount of time at work writing up design documents and other documentation so other engineers can get their heads around my code and algorithms. So I'm really thankful that I had good writing classes in school and can put a sentence together. :-)
Probably depends on the size of the company you work for. As someone who has worked mainly at small to medium sized businesses, I've also been responsible for:
database creation, management, and tuning
supporting the internal applications I launch
managing website certificates
setting up external hosting
and I'm sure there's more as well
Well, since a programmer's primary tool is his computer, I think it's fair to assume some expertise with it. Most of those sorts of things you've described are difficult for someone unfamiliar with computers, but pretty easy (even with little prior experience) for someone who understands the domain and knows how to find and read documentation.
In a big, well-organized business or project, I'd expect someone who was more specifically familiar with those sort of administrative things to take care of them. However, if there's not enough of them to warrant a full-time job, then I don't think it's unreasonable to have anyone competent work on it; and programmers are probably at the head of the queue in that regard.
I find the vast majority of "bugs" discovered by users are configuration problems with the systems on which the application is installed. Having developers that understand the common machine and network setup errors is very desirable.
For example if an application sends email as part of its operation its useful to have developers knowledgable in DNS and SMTP configuration.
Of course it depends on your size of business, large organisations can probably shield developers from this by using other specialists.
I realized I'm never hired for the actual job, but as a problem solver. Whether I figure out what's going on, and fix it through code, or software, or something on the network, this seems to be the main perception of what clients want.
This will vary greatly depending on where you are. I've worked with people who know none of this stuff, and people who are experts.
Knowing this will help you greatly. In general it's always better to understand the environment your code is running in. Not understanding the context leaves you somewhat helpless.
Additionally there are often bugs that are not code related but configuration related, for example a page not showing up because of the apache configuration. You're very handicapped in debugging if you don't understand the environment.
People around a work place probably expect a programmer to be their IT HelpDesk guy... it happens around here to me. argh.
Where I work, all developers are expected to be able to use Subversion and have to be able to setup and configure Apache and Tomcat on their PC.
The biggest challenge is not the technical issues associated with getting the environment up and running but the domain knowledge required to effectively develop software in a small shop. For me, I work on a lot of different projects from a variety of sources in a mostly isolated development environment. This means that I need to come up to speed on the domain of the project pretty quickly in order to be effective in developing a solution. In the past I've worked on print accounting solutions, active directory management, research survey databases, and currently a quasi-CRM solution for a charitable organization. I wish I only had to know the nuts and bolts of setting up my development and build environment.
It often depends on the size of the company. In a little company, you have to know how to do everything, including systems admin, and network admin, even if your job is focused on programming.
In a big company, you get to see a little slice of the universe, and they often don't like you peeking outside of your box. Not only do you not need to learn everything, they're often unhappy with you if you try.
However, the more you understanding about the machines, how they work, and how they function in an operational environment, the easier it is to diagnose problems and write better software. The more you understanding about the domain you're writing applications for, the better you are able to differentiate between the users needs and their desires.
One of the coolest things about being a software developer is you have a life long excuse for sticking your nose into both the technologies and the various business domains. If you've shifted around to a few different industries, you tend to become loaded down with all sorts of interesting tidbits. There is always more to learn ...
Paul.
It's good to expose yourself to other technologies, but I really think it's a bad idea for you to not fully disclose the fact that you aren't experts in those areas (esp. domain setup). I've worked with people who thought they could do it all but ended up doing those tasks so poorly that with all the time (and money) they've spent trying to get it right, a consultant would have been paid for several times over.
I've worked at a company where I was responsible for everything "related to a computer" including the domain, PCs, database, custom software, builds, MS Office, PowerPoint, Quickbooks...; a mid-size company where it was development and builds; and a large company where I focus solely on the .Net code for my project (someone else handles the database and another handles reporting).
The mid-size company has been the best experience so far (pretty new at the large company) where I was given enough responsibility to feel useful and had easy access to everyone else to ask questions about those other tasks.
You are not alone out there. The position I signed up for was "ASP.NET Web Developer"... However, my job consists of:
Windows Server Administration
Limited Linux Administration (running
top to monitor CPU utilization and changing apache configs)
LDAP Administration / Tuning
MS SQL Server 2005 Administration /
Tuning
Database Development
Crystal Reports Developer
Perl Scripts
C# Win32 Developement
C# / ASP.NET Web Developement
Managing User Access Rights for
Windows Servers
Limited Network Troubleshooting
Being in a company that is constantly striving for supreme "Operation Effectiveness" my task list only grows by the day. I did not make up that list either. All of the items mentioned above, I have either touched or supported in the past 3 years I have worked in this company.
That being said, in a good development shop, you should have one specific task. As the saying goes, Jack of all trades ... master of none.
This depends greatly on what you're programming. If you're doing low level device drivers, it's vital that you understand the underlying hardware. If you're doing a standalone Java app, the better you understand the JVM and libraries you're using, the better - but it isn't strictly necessary to know a lot.
In general, the more you understand about your system environment, the better. How much your peers and management expect you to know depends on them.
Ignorance will, eventually, be punished. If not by your peers and management, the world will do it. Check any week's headlines or RISKS digest for examples where ignorance of the system environment cause software failure.
[rant mode on]
Ha, the curse of Excel and Word.
Outside work - particularly friends and family but sometimes when consulting or delivering software too, any and all non-technical people expect you to understand these. There's that internal groan when someone asks you across to have a look at a small problem they're having with some facet of Office. And because it's a client and you want to appear helpful you agree.
There's just this blanket expectation that because you're a developer you have an innate knowledge of configuring spreadsheets, fixing Word templates, and any and all other office techie tasks, and furthermore you can cast your eye over some badly configured Office mess and instantly diagnose what the problem is.
I can only just about manage to put together a spreadsheet to schedule my reoccuring invoices and set up a Word template to write them. I regularly tell people that too - but no-one ever listens.
It depends a lot on the type of software you're currently developing
For example, when I was working on software for a local government, I had to learn things like
What are the rules for registering animals (pets). What are the types of registrations, what discounts apply, what are penalties for not registering on time
How are council rates calculated. How are rates raised yearly (actually, the algorithm for raising yearly rates and its implementation was the most complex task I met so far).
How are building permits issued. What types of inspections can be performed. Who is involved in the process of issuing a building permit (owner, builder, architect, officers etc.)
How often are water meters read. How are water meters assigned to properties, how many dials are on a water meter, how to detach a water meter from one property and to attach to a different one
What are different pension types. What are different discounts that are granted depending on a pension type.
What are different types of receipts. What different types of terminal printers (those that are used to print small receipts) exist and how to print to them.
What are properties, strata children, what are rules for dividing properties into 'parcels' ...
Well, that's just part of non-programming stuff that I learned during the 2 years on the project. The most unfortunate thing here is that now that I moved to a different company, there is very little chance that any of this knowledge I will ever use.
My job title is "Senior Software Engineer". In point of fact, for most of the past several years, I did fairly little software development, but did do a lot of:
Systems & web administration
Static web page development with HTML (I don't consider that programming, although I have done PHP, CGI, and JavaScript).
As others have said, help desk sorts of stuff, although not as much as in the past.
As a "task leader", I'm expected to have some people/management skills, although that usually devolves to writing monthly reports. I also get sucked into CMMi stuff from time to time, which in an ideal world might be somewhat relevant, but is usually just record keeping so the employer can bid on new contracts which require it.
Working in science lab, there's a need to know some of the science, especially if you want/need to work on the code doing the scientific calculations.
Working in a (U.S.) government facility, there's lots of paperwork and a need to know lots of government regulation (e.g. Freedom of Information Act)
Fortunately, I've recently made an internal transfer where I'm doing more development work and less of this other stuff!
Personally, I find that knowing more is always good, it paves the way to the next level. The hardest things in life is at the integration point. Literally. People focus a lot on specializing, but don't forget that you need people who can straddle both realms.
I work for a software vendor whose market is developer tools and we have been looking for a QA person for our products.
Since we are a small shop the position will be a combination of Support and QA however since we make developer tools, our support consists in large part of actual development (in that the person must read and understand our customers code and find and point out bugs in it).
The QA portion will also consist of writing applications (in a variety of platforms and languages) and testing how they work with our tools.
The main issue I am running into is when you tell someone with development experience that the position contains "QA" it its title (or even in the job description) they shy away from considering the job.
I'm very interested in feedback and suggestions for how I can find a good person to fill this job and ensure that they are happy doing it. Any ideas?
Money and responsibility.
The reason I shy away from these types of jobs is they dont tend to hold my interest long enough. Having real development tasks should keep you out of that category. The other problem is the salary is usually significantly lower with that in the title.
I am a developer, but spent time working as a QA person (test writing, automation, tool writing/coding). I saw it as something I was doing on the side, and would eventually move out of.
The main reason I wanted out was that it simply was not the career I wanted. No amount of money/responsibility would change that. However I think respect has something to do with it as well. A lot of QA work is simply unappreciated, so that is something that would need to be clearly explained as "not how things work at your company."
I would find someone who wants a QA position, but has strong developement/coding/problem solving skills. They could fill in doing the tool creation or other small coding tasks, but it would be on the side. Sort of a reverse of my feelings above.
I think the ideal combination of jobs is product manager + QA. What I mean by product manager is someone who writes requirements documents and is responsible for making sure the product meets the requirements. This person would be a peer of the lead developer, not a superior. A person who is a developer but likes management and wants to take that career path might be very interested in that combination of roles.
To start with you can just take "QA" out of the title and description if that seems to be 'hot button' that is keeping candidates from looking at the position seriously.
From your description, your position doesn't have much in common with a traditional 'tester' role - the work is mostly writing and thinking about code, not banging on someone else's code and trying to break it. Think of it as a fairly eclectic, tools-oriented development position, and try to advertise and staff it accordingly. (And expect to pay accordingly as well - you get what you pay for.) There are quite a few developers out there who have good skills, but maybe a little shorter attention span than others, and who would prefer to work on a succession of mini projects rather than a longer-lasting piece of a bigger project.
You may just want to keep "QA" out of the title, and call the position "Developer Support" or something like that. Don't mislead any candidates about the duties of the role, but you can cast it more as a "You will be responsible for building the releases and ensuring they are ready to ship to customers."
Also make sure that there is a career path that leads into more development, not more QA, if that's what the candidate wants.
Finally, make sure that the other developers treat this person as a fellow developer, and not as somebody outside the team.
It's sad that "QA" has some stigma attached to it among developers, but it does.
I was a programmer working as a tester for a little time. If I may, the answer is quite simple: let them do whatever they want.
If you give them free reign, I can guarantee that your software will be tested in ways you never imagined.
If, on the other hand, you try to control such a person, then they will grow to despise you. This is inevitable.
The benefits outweight the costs. If you're a large corp then this decision is easy. Just hire software developers and tell them to "go to town" on your product. You'll love the results.
Money and responsibility are key, as Adam and Chops point out. Quality engineers should be on the same pay scale as the developers. Interesting work is also an important factor. The role sounds like a nice variety of tasks.
At my company, developers are often loaned to the test team between projects or when test team is swamped. Some have a knack, others don't. Still, most developers would rather test their own code than find bugs in others' work. The test managers actively woo developers with strong testing skills. I resisted switching to the test team for seven years. A promotion, a 20% raise and a promise that my role was primarily trouble-shooting, management and planning finally convinced me to switch. I do more hands on testing than I thought I would, but I get the challenging work too.
Pay comparable to development. Be truthful; disclose actual expectations of the role. Change the title to Software Quality Engineer.
I agree with Adam, money and responsibility are key. I would suggest that, if you're within a small company, that your QA team is small/non-existent. That probably means there's good opportunity for someone to come in and make a genuine effort to contribute and shape your companies QA policy, procedure and workflow.
Our company had a similar issue with QA, and we're still not there 100% with it. But giving the QA person the power to dictate policy and procedure, and participate in all aspects of product development so as to keep them in the loop has worked well for us. This means, when it comes to QA and testing, we've got someone who understands the product, knows it inside and out, has been heavily involved from the start, and has heavily shaped the procedures they themselves, and the development team, will follow. Responsibility is key.
Most developers are neither good testers nor do they enjoy testing, and you want someone who is both. Be honest in your job ad that the position is NOT a stepping stone to a developer position and you will have fewer applicants but a better chance of keeping who you do hire. QA typically has lousy pay, so if you are willing to pay better, you should be able to find someone. You won't keep them if you hire someone who wants to write code all day, regardless of how much you pay them.
I think you have a toughie here:
The cost of a full time developer for doing the job you require would be too high.
Most dev's (including myself) would get incredibly fed up, very quickly. Most dev's passion is coding, they want to do it as much as possible. Where TBH, from what you have said, it may be very little in the job role you have.
I would say perhaps look for a Junior, someone fresh with little experience. They will probably mould better to your testing/QA process, and it gives them a chance to start looking at production code, with perhaps opportunity to work with it.
Unless you are lucky, I would not expect a "developer" to stay for long, so either expect a bit of turnover, or possibly expand to a full dev role if required, and get a cheaper sole tester in.
I know you are a small shop, so finances may be a large part to play, but I would say you need to weigh up the possibility of getting a dev in and fixing the problems you have if they occur that often. Testers are cheap by comparison. May be best to get a tester in, find all the issues, then get a contractor/part time dev in to fix issues.
Dude, A certain company I work for has found the solution to your problems. Hire QE not QA. QA (Quality Assurance) does have a stigma to it. The job title itself implies boring rote tasks to most developers. QE (Quality Engineering) sounds just as bad, but doesn't scare off nearly as many people.
If all else fails just hire a developer. I mean seriously, you want someone who can write code, so hire someone who has training in that. The thing is, you need to look at your applicants and talk to them. You are looking for someone who knows how QE works and you want to hire a developer that works in the language your program uses not what it's written in.
The most common title for this posotion is "Software Developer in Test".
But I think another trouble is much more important - its hard to prevent a person with good testing and dev knowledge from migrating to Dev team