This post forms part of series, if you’ve not done so already you may want to take a look part 1
Last time round I promised to provide a worked example of how the scheme might work, this post will chart the early careers of two fresh out of university programmers, Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob are both smart people but have very different skill sets, Alice is a hard core dev and really has no desire to go into management, Bob on the other hand is weaker in terms of pure programming but is better with people and organisation.
This example is a little artificial since, in order to show case the scheme, Alice and Bob are pretty much polar opposites. Real world examples will be much more subtle, though hopefully by demonstrating a toy example it will become clear how to apply the same ideas once real people are involved.
Our story begins as Bob and Alice join FantastiCo as graduate programmers. At this stage it is only necessary to identify the Core Knowledge Areas for their respective roles.
Alice is working on FantastiCo’s core platform, she has no customer facing responsibilities and while she works within a larger team, has no responsibilities outside of the code that she produces.
Bob will be writing plugins to unleash the awesome power of the FantastiCo’s core platform, the plugins are typically developed with a lot of client interaction and while Bob will not be expected to deal with clients on day one, once he gets up to speed this will become a significant part of his job. At this point his Core Knowledge Areas are the same as Alice’s but also include the ‘Client Comms’ Knowledge area.
Alice is progressing well and coming along as expected, she has made less progress in areas such as Quality and Design though at this stage this is really just a reflection that her role is not yet providing the necessary opportunities.
Bob is clearly a good communicator but there are concerns that he doesn’t spend enough time testing his code. Like Alice, Bob has not made very much progress in Design and Quality but at this stage this is not a concern.
Alice is demonstrating considerable technical skill and this is reflected in a strong performance in Construction and Technology. She is starting to approach the criteria for progressing up to Software Developer ii. The best way to do this is look at moving Operations or Design up to full Practitioner. It is also worth noting that Alice is starting to develop Project Management skills despite this not forming part of her Core Knowledge Areas
Bob continues to develop well in communications and while not as strong at Construction he is close to reaching Practitioner status. He is still not making progress against Testing and Quality which is starting to limit his effectiveness. In order to be promoted to Software Developer ii he needs at least three Core Knowledge Areas at Practitioner and the remaining Core areas at least Introductory. He’s getting close but he needs to start taking more care in ensuring that his code does what he says it does. Like Alice, Bob is also making progress against Project Management.
Based on the proposed Ladder Levels, Alice is now at the stage where she can be considered for promotion to Software Developer ii. Her manager is very a happy for this to happen and Alice is promoted.
Bob has shown improvement against Quality and Testing, but still does not have the practical skills to adequately test his code, ultimately this limits Bob’s overall effectiveness and blocks him being considered for promotion to Software Developer ii.
Now that Alice is becoming increasingly able she is taken on more responsibility for Project Management, while she does not have formal project management responsibilities it is now an important part of her role and has been added to her Core Knowledge Areas.
Following his previous review Bob has worked hard to improve his testing skills and he is now ready for promotion to Software Developer ii. Bob has joined the mentoring scheme and this is reflected in his progress against Line Management.
Alice is now a highly respected developer and is starting to approach the point we’re she can be considered for promotion to Software Developer iii. Note that despite the fact that she has started interviewing, Recruitment is not a core part of Alice’s role.
Bob has recently shifted roles and is the Technical Project Manager of a small team. As such his Core Knowledge Areas have changed, in Bob’s case it is appropriate to remove Construction and Testing. Note, Bob’s role has changed but he still remains at the same ladder level of ii, having said that his new role means that he has greater responsibility than he did as a Software Developer ii and is compensated accordingly.
Alice has been promoted to Software developer iii but has also shifted roles to Tech Lead , her project manager considers her input into the personal development of team as an important part of her role and Line Management is now a Core Knowledge area, despite there being no expectation that Alice will progress past Introductory. The shift to Tech Lead brings with it greater responsibility and this is reflected in her compensation, it is important to note that Alice could have stayed as an individual contributor without this negatively affecting her ladder level.
Now as an experienced Project Manager, Bob has reached Technical Project Manager iii status. He has become rusty development wise and his score against these areas has deteriorated since Construction and Testing are no longer Core Knowledge Areas, this is not a problem.
Walk Through Conclusion
After 5 years Bob and Alice consider themselves to be peers despite following very different paths and having very different skills sets. Alice worked consistently well through out the period whereas Bob was initially held back by his skills in Testing and Quality.
The scheme’s original aims were to
- Provide junior and mid range staff something to aim at and work to.
- Provide senior staff who do not wish to enter management an alternate career path without the fear of adversely affecting their seniority or salary.
- Be flexible enough to account for nuances in the role of individuals
I think the scheme as it stands makes some real progress against these goals but there is still plenty to be done. Future work might include improving the examples section, refining the Knowledge Areas and tuning the criteria for ladder levels.
This is the last post in the series, I’d be very interested to hear of the experiences of others trying to solve a similar problem, please feel free to get in touch via comments or if you would prefer via email (neil at this domain).