QUALITY IS FREE. OR NOT.

This is the first in a series of blogs about what I've experienced during my job hunt and it deals with a peculiarity that is somewhat unique to the QA/QC field.

Whether you've worked as a PM, a line manager, or an executive in the IT arena, you know that all thing corporate flow from a budget.

It stands to reason that if you're applying for any type of management position, you're going to want to get a feel for the size of the IT area, the number/nature of the software projects they produce, and what kind of budget you'll have to work with.

I am no longeer amazed when the answer is there isn't a budget for QA/QC. Oh sure, I might start whimpering uncontrollably, but I'm no longer surprised. Development managers and PMs have budgets. Accounting departments have budgets. Operations organizations have budgets. But for some unknown reason, testing groups, regardless of size, apparently work for free.

Or not.

If, in answer to your questions, there appears to be no budget, it behooves you to ask more questions. Contrary to those vicious rumors spread in the 70s, quality is not free. Even monkey testeers want to be paid in bananas. And while bananas DO grow on trees, unlike money, it's highly unusual for such a phenomenon to manifest in Philadelphia, PA.

There are, of course, answers to your questions, and each of those answers contains vital information and a variety of pitfalls. It doesn't mean you shouldn't accept a position, if other elements of the job appeal to you, but it does add to your knowledge base and expectations, possibly ratcheting them down to reasonable levels.

First, it's entirely possible the company doesn't know how much they need to budget and have decided to just hire someone who knows what they're doing and worry about it later. They'll tell you they want their new hire to assess the situation and tell THEM what's needed.

(Cue romantic violin music. Pop champagne corks.) Oh baby. I'm in love.

This is really, really seductive. Who wouldn't want to assess what needs to happen and have it handed to them on a silver platter?

But slow down there. Squint through that rose-colored haze and really take a look at your interviewer. Are they wearing a red suit? Drop your pen on the floor and surreptitiously check out their feet. Are they cloven hooves? Is it hot in the office? Have you noticed a jar of Vaseline on the desk?

If so, these are Very Bad Signs and you need to ask more questions before you sign away your soul.

Find out how much they've put aside to kick things off. If the answer is "nothing", then you have no people and you're it. You might be it for a Very Long Time. Like eternity. A good opportunty will have (some) thought behind it, and some sort of funds put aside to begin the work. Thereafter, you'll have to go through all the customary hoo-haw of making recommendations, obtaining funding, and justifying your requests. You may or may not get what you need to do the job. So make sure you're on the same page before you're committed to what might be a lesson in futility. If there are 300 people in the IT area, it's unlikely a staff of 3 will be able to handle the workload. But if 3 is what executive management has in mind, it's going to be a hard, hard road to get something more reasonable approved. Try to ask questions that give you an idea of what they have in mind. I can assure you they've talked about it. You may have to dig a little, but there's some expectations in there somewhere; use all of your hard-won testing analysis skills aned ferret it out.

In some companies, there will be a budget all right. But you won't control it. This makes you a lead, not a manager. In the corporate world, management staff control budgets, and the bigger your budget, the more power you have. You might not like hearing that, but it's true. If you don't manage a budget, you don't manage squat from a corporate perspective. Whomever is holding the pursestrings can (and wil) steal important pieces and parts of your funds for whatever they see fit. Often it will be for a mismanaged project or a new development resource. You'll find your abiity to provide promotions, raises, or bonuses will either be constrained or dictated to you to ensure there's enough dough for some other group that has more clout than you have. Having a budget, by the way, doesn't keep these things from happening, but it makes it harder and they have to ask you first.

Overall, a budget controlled by someone else is an insoluable issue. It often requires an Act of God to change corporate culture. This is a good reason to make sure you like a given corporate culture before you get on board.

The best opportunities will have some sort of budget, be able to tell you what it is, and will expect you to be responsible for managing it. You will be responsible for setting it for future years.

So if you're a hiring firm with no budget for QA/QC, please have the decency to stock Kleenex for your hapless interviewees. I hate weeping openly all over my navy blue power suit....

MY INDIAN NAME IS "RHUMBAS WITH RECRUITERS"....

Well, the job hunt is finally in full swing (I took a vacation in San Antonio first!), and I thought I'd share the joys and pains of my discoveries in my blog. Whether you're part of a hiring team or seaching for your own version of DreamCorp, maybe some of my experiences and thoughts will help you either hire better candidates, or find a better job.

There's so much to talk to about I'm going to break it up into a series of blogs and have some fun with it; if I ever stop laughing at myself and the world around me, I'll know it's time to hang up my gloves...

Now I've been honored by any number of calls from firms that would like to discuss my qualifications and I'm not going to reward their interest by besmirching their Good Names. If you read something and say "My God!!! She's writing about US!!!", kindly remember I've talked to a lot of people. It's unlikely I've picked you, personally, out of the pack. But if you recognize some of these issues, well, maybe it's a sign you might want to work on your courtship methods. And for those looking for better opportunities, maybe it will help you decide what questions you'd like to have answered before you say "I do.".

I think it would be best to set a little context before I start; what I'm looking for and what Floats My Boat might be different from yours. There are some general considerations when looking for work; money, title, people/environment, and extras. Everyone puts those in a different order.

For me, the job comes first. I have to be attracted to and excited by the opportunity itself. Why is that? Because I have a lot of experience and have been in jobs that paid Very Well Indeed that I didn't like much. The money wasn't worth it. I've had a few jobs where no amount of money would have been worth it. Money is not my primary motivator. I like what I do for a living, and I expect to look forward to getting up and going into work every morning. Since I have a lot of experience, what interests me most are positions that let me me use that experience. I like complex environments with a lot of interfaces, a lot of people, and a lot of problems. I'm used to being in charge and I'm easily bored, so when I say I need challenge, it's not a bunch of hokey applicant BS. Problems are ennervating; that's why I'm in this field.

People and environment come next. When you're interviewing, you need to connect with your interviewer. Sometimes, what they forget is that have to impress you as well. If I don't like the hiring manager or my peers, I'm not going to deliberately put myself into a position where I'd have to work with or for them every day. The environment has to resonate with me. Many of you have "been there, done that", so you know what I'm talking about. Nothing is worse than working for/with people who get on your last nerve. Again, there is no level of compensation that will ever make that kind of opportunity anything but Heinous.

Money is third on my list. It's not my primary motivator, but it IS a motivator. Look, I've got more than 25 years of experience. I'm just not going to be cheap. That's reality. A company doesn't really want or need to hire me if someone with 5 years of experience can do the job. Believe me, I'm not going to be resentful if I don't fit into someone's budget. So it's useless to try to talk me into a ginormous pay cut just for the privilege of getting my foot in the door at (some) company. I'm not 25 years old. I don't want to spend the next 15 years moving up a largely mythical corporate ladder. I've already Done My Time. If I really want the job you have to offer, I might negotiate a little, but generally, if my financial situation reaches critical mass, I'll just sign on with some local consulting firm and consult for a while. I've taken jobs in the past that cut my salary - it has never, not once, been worth it. And promises that salaries will miraculously go up at some unspecified time in the future are pretty much worth the paper they're written on. I know there are a lot of you out there that, if they're temporarily out of work, would and have taken the first thing that popped up. But were you happy about it? Or did you resent it? Did you just stay there, or did you continue looking for something better? There's a lesson there, by the way, for hiring firms. Don't lowball talented candidates. Even if they accept, they won't stay.

Next on my list is title. Titles generally only mean something in relation to other positions at a given company. The primary players in the QA arena should be in keeping with similar positions in the DEV arena. I know the difference between a lead, a manager, a director, and a VP. So the likelihood of me being impressed by a sexy title that any competent senior analyst could handle is slim and none. But I think companies that offer such titles are smart, smart, smart. There are many talented leads out there that would really like the word "manager" or "director" in their title. For me, the job title has to match the job responsibilities. That said, my ego is just as healthy as everyone else's - if the job is great and the money is good, having a sexy title like "Supreme Ruler of the Quality Universe" is a nice, albeit unnecessary, perk.

Last on my list is extras. You can never count on an extra; it's usually the first thing taken away if the company has a bad financial year. I expect "normal" benefits and will actually give up some salary for vacation, but generally anything else is just a "nice to have". I've never had a stock option I could actually exercise and show a profit. Bonuses aren't guaranteed. So I'll be interested in any extras, but they're unlikely to sway me much. There are, of course, some extras that fall into a different category altogether. Hiring bonuses or stock grants are more like money in the bank.

So that's my personal list; how does it stack up to yours? Many people I know put money and title first; some choose people/environment.

Regardless, I hope you'll join me on my safari through the jungle that is the Job Market; coming this next week is:

Quality is Free. Or Not.
No Problems Here, Officer...
A Rose By Any Other Name
Blue Light Special in Aisle 9...
I Smell Brimstone
Save the Baby!
Stenography for Fun and Profit
Job Opportunities in Asswipe, North Dakota

Hope you enjoy it; feel free to add your own experiences!!