Raganwald ought to be asking interviewees to sketch out a design for a half decent weblog site!

Fred:

Can you articulate some requirement that my weblog doesn't fill for you?

Paul:

I don't ask it of all interviewees, just those that pass all the other questions first ;-)

Actually, it really does depend on the situation. For a small team developing application software, I absolutely ask a question like this. Everyone needs to be able to understand design tradeoffs, communicate effectively about technical topics, and work under a modicum of pressure.

OTOH, I'm currently helping some colleagues hire students fresh out of college. Based on the people we're seeing, a college degree does not qualify graduates to understand the question, much less come up with an answer.

Back to the "pressure" point. I am nt suggesting that my idea of pressur is that superhuman developers can formulate a complete, awesome design in a few hours. But I do look for people who can identify some really big, important issues to address first.

There's a critical skill needed to be able to know which areas of a design can be fleshed out later and which can't. Some people shrug off issues which can be real ship-sinkers later.

Reg,

I’ll email you separately with comments regarding your blog. Its not so much that it doesn’t meet my needs. Its more that I would have thought as an employer you would want to present a professional business image.

Re: “Sketch out a software design to referee the game Monopoly”

If I were asked this question at an interview some intial questions I’d have are:

- What do you want to achieve by creating such a system?

- Who will be using the system and what are their needs?

- What is the budget and timeframe for the project?

- What platform(s) is the system required to run on?

- What are the system performance requirements. Eg speed of response, availability, reliability, etc

- What is the role of the refree?

- What are the business rules? (You say the rules of monopoly are vague. I haven’t played it for years, but they were always very definite to me. Anyway, an agreed set of concrete rules needs to be established.

etc, etc

Your focus, like many software developers, is a purely technical one. If these and other questions are not resolved before commencing the design then, from a business perspective, there’s no point in proceeding with the system further.

Otherwise the process becomes a purely academic one. It has no place in industry, but does have a place in Universities, but that may be where you’re coming from. Is that correct?

Its only after a set of essential and desirable project outcomes has been formally agreed that design can commence. Throughout the design process the system design needs to be regularly validated against these success criteria.

Its only then developers can start talking about things like Business Rule Engines, expert systems, etc

"How many ____ are there in Australia?"

I answered it within 10 minutes and they didn't like my answer. I knew they were more interested on how I approach my answer though.

Or were they?

I didn't get the job and later I met someone who got it. He worked crazy hours with the company (till midnight) and wasn't paid overtime. Now he is looking for another job and I feel sorry for him.

So you see, the reason I didn't get the job was because my answer to "Can you come early at 6 pm or stay back as sometimes we need someone to monitor the launching?" was a big "NO".

Oh yeah, back to the question. My friend took 30 minutes to answer it and I guess it is save to conclude now that it was the "duration" that they were after. Someone who would be willing to spend a long time to solve a problem - a perfect slave worker.

Till this day I still look down upon them - a bunch of cocky managers and technical directors who thought their company is the best thing since (fill in the blank). Sometimes it really makes me wonder how they sleep at night. Big "L" for them ! :-D

Personally, if I were asked that question in an interview I'd quickly stand up - thank the interviewer for their time, and see my self out rather than have my time wasted any longer (yes I have done it before).

'Interviews' or as I prefer to call them 'discussions' are opportunities for both parties - it may be the only chance a candidate gets for deciding whether the culture, enviornment, and people are a good fit - if any of them aren't you need to look elsewhere. The question above indicates the environment doesn't take me seriously and wants me to jump through hoops to get the job.

Fred:

My personal blog does not represent any company or specific employer. If it's informal and unprofessional, I hope it does so in the same way that dressing casually on the week-end is informal and unprofessional.

I also use my blog to discuss a number of technical topics that are not appropriate for many business contexts. For example, I have discussed side projects and programming languages that are entirely unrelated to any specific business venture.

Now about your response to the hypothetical question. Good questions, but off topic for that question. The question is intended as an entirely technical challenge, not a business challenge. My response would be that I appreciate the full spectrum of skills that you are displaying, however I want to zero in and focus on just one: software design.

In certain situations I also ask some more business-oriented questions, and in those I am far more interested in the candidate exploring the business case for the software.

As I've noted repeatedly, this question is not intended to be a swiss army knife question that reveals all. It's one of many I would ask as part of a long and thorough investigation of a candidate's horsepower.

Belair:

NO HIRE.

And yes, other candidates have from time to time taken the position that their resume, or their portfolio, or their degree, or something else should take the place of demonstrating their fitness for the job.

I can neither agree nor disagree with them. It's a big world out here, and everyone has their place. I sincerely hope that you have found yours and will continue to succeed.

For your amusement, here is a time when I did poorly in an interview myself. I am 'not even perfect':

http://weblog.raganwald.com/2004/07/interviewees-perspective.html

Fred:

I can't resist adding a post scriptum:

Your contention that technical considerations have no place outside of a University seems typical of people focused on writing internal IT projects. I see that 'brainbox.com.au' seems to have this focus.

You may want to consider that my career focus has actually been on shrinkwrap/ISV software. I have found that there is even more pressure to make sound business decisions. For example, taking an extra month to complete a product may mean missing an important launch window or losing a critical sale to the competition.

That being said, I have found that in an ISV and in a startup, there is more room for innovation. This places a premium on hiring incredibly talented people. Not technically talented instead of business savvy, but technically talented as well as business savvy. If someone like you has the technical shops to go with the business pragmatism, that's all the better.

Joel said it better than I could:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FiveWorlds.html

"When can you start?" Problem is that, in IT, those are very rare words.

I too would walk out of the interview.

Interviewers sometimes forget an interview is a two-way street. If you're interested enough to ask me in on the basis of my resume, then let's have an interview, not play stupid games or do tests.

On one occassion when I was pressured into doing a test, I was told "I was the only one that came close". On the second interview, the interviewer and I had a disagreement over some definitions; I was right, and I didn't get the job.

The world's biggest I.T. exporting nation is Ireland, and I didn't have to jump through hoops to get a job there, and I refuse to do it here.

Reg,

I'm tempted to launch into a dissertation about my perspectives on this topic and your response. But it'd just end up being tit for tat on a web forum like this.

I'm not trying to be derrogatory or get the upper hand I just want to 'educate' you.

In Australia, the only software projects that get funded are the 'internal' ones. Very little commercial software products are developed in Australia by Australian companies. Venture capital funding for pure R&D is virtually impossible to get.

In the 'internal' world there's also the rife intellectual

jealously that destroys most innovation and perpetuates the continuation of established software products and development processes.

I'm involved with at least three R&D projects, my own startup, and a regular 9-5 contract job. I only get paid for the contact job.

To get any funding here the venture has to be demonstrably zero risk. That is, it basically has to be used commercially already.

Perhaps you may see why I have a business focus.

Voyager and Belair:

I'm with you in sentiment. If you consider demonstrating your technical skills to be a pointless activity, if you consider it demeaning in some way, a "hoop to jump through," don't do it.

There's always another company out there that has an approach to hiring that fits with your ideal. It's a little like dating: there are some intangibles that go far beyond the obvious "height, weight, hair colour, income, hobbies" :-)

That being said, please understand that I don't consider it demenaning. If I did, I wouldn't ask anyone to do it. I didn't title my post "the most effective interview question." It's my favourite because I personally enjoyed being asked the question.

And in truth, that's why I continue to ask it of the very best people I meet. Almost everyone I ask responds with enthusiasm.

Perhaps there is some argument about whether the best question is about elevators, or vending machines, or peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or spice racks for the blind. But some people enjoy designing things and solving problems. It's not just their job, it's their hobby.

For those people, this isn't pointless. In fact, they have the opposite response. They end up wanting the job even more.

Asking questions to determine how candidates might approach problems or determine their analytical ability would have some merit if it actually mattered.

In my not inconsiderable experience, most employers ask such questions to give themselves a veneer of credibility or to give the interviewer a hard-on about how much more intelligent they are than the candidate.

Of course, all they're really interested in is having a billable warm body fill a cube space. In fact, you're probably more valuable if you can't produce well designed code because it just creates more work later and makes it harder for the client to use another vendor.

Sad but True:

Most employment opportunities are dreck. And judging by the candidates I have to screen every time I post an opening, most candidates will fail to reach even the low standards of a cubicle plantation.

However, while sad, it is irrelevant. The task at hand for a candidate is to find the one position that provides meaningful, satisfying work with suitable compensation. The task at hand for an employer is to find the one candidate that rises above the tide of mediocrity and shines like a diamond in the rough.

See the mention above of Joel's Five Worlds. I've used questions like Monopoly for positions involving natural language interpretation and semantic mining, the creation of Java development tools, and the creation of fault-tolerant data centre control systems.

Under no circumstances would I attempt to use an interview to appear smarter than a candidate. If I think I'm smarter than a candidate, NO HIRE. I am only interested in hiring people who bring something to the team. Otherwise, why add extra management and communication overhead? Why dilute equity?

But here's the thing: you're interviewing for a job. You feel that for that job, a design question is a waste because they have low standards anyways. What does it matter what they want to ask? Why aren't you saying "NO WAY" the moment you realize they are just another warm body shop?

Reg: I've come across your type before. It strikes me that you're the type of interviewer that makes the candidate jump through hoops while deriving vicarious please from watching the candidate twist and squirm. Frankly, Reg, it's people like you that inhabit the sh#t pit that IT is that makes me feel all warm inside all day every day because.....I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER TO A W@NKER LIKE YOU.

See you on the welfare line Reg.

Reg,

I'd personally would have no problem being asked this kind of question at an interview. I wouldn't feel threatened or demeaned as other's have suggested.

The fact is, however, answers to this type of question will tell you precisely nothing about a person's software design abilities.

Why? Because great software is not designed in the 'real world' (Joel missed that one out!) in hour long interviews. Same in IT exams that try to test the same things.

A good track record and good personal references are what really count.

The people that'll often shine in interviews, when asked a question like this, are the good bull artists. They'll demonstrate great self-confidence and will have researched the company and the position. They know just what technologies, terminology, and acronyms to through in to make their knowledge and skills seem plausible.

Ofcouse, the guys with no work experience and not so great interpersonal skills or appearance, are left sitting on the bench, even though they may turn out to be great developers.

Reg, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say demonstrating my technical skills was pointless. Fred has listed the reasons I wouldn't comply -it'd tell you nothing about my capabilities. If you want to discuss real-world requirements with me, and how I would solve them, then it would have relevance to my abilities. Using the word demeaning, which I didn't mention either, tells me UnemployedITer is correct.

Reg Says:

If I think I'm smarter than a candidate, NO HIRE.

I find it hard to believe you'd be willing to admit anyone on this planet is as intelligent as yourself.

Sad but True Says:

In my not inconsiderable experience, most employers ask such questions to give themselves a veneer of credibility or to give the interviewer a hard-on about how much more intelligent they are than the candidate.

The monoploy question has potential merit for graduate recruitment - for someone niave and relatively inexperienced the question might lead them to believe the firm has an air of arrogance/prestige about them.

Folks:

I honestly wish you all well. However, this exchange has reached a fairly obvious terminal.

I'm sorry that this subject has raised such obvious rancour in some of the particpants' words and tone.

There's abolutely no reason for hard feelings or harsh accusations.

If I'm ever in Australia (hopefully to sample some of the world's best rock climbing), perhaps we can share a drink and a laugh about all of this.

If anyone has something further to share with me and you want to be sure I read it, please use the email address I've provided. If you have a question, I would be happy to answer it honestly.

This comment was removed as it contained offensive content.

Joel on software.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/printerFriendly/articles/FiveWorlds.html

It's yet another book on how "my company can't do software right - and management don't listen to me".

I think Reg should write a book: "How I will never find an employee as good as I am".

Re-titled as: "How to be a l33t coder and make sure management don't replace you".

This would be just one question among many, and a few curve ball questions can potenitally reveal aspects of a candidate that straight questioning cannot.

If the question works for Reg as a possible way to differentiate between very similar candidates, and the line of questioning has proven to pick good people when they eventually start working, then it's a good question.

The curve ball interview question is common for not only for your lower techy levels. It's something you can't prepare, or rehearse endlessly for. Something that actually reflects real job situations, where you get throw curve balls all the time.

Voyager Interviewers sometimes forget an interview is a two-way street. If you're interested enough to ask me in on the basis of my resume, then let's have an interview, not play stupid games or do tests.

The problem is that your resume could be all bs. Your resume may interest me based on the contents, but it's in the interview where I can seperate the facts from the bs a little.

MK said The problem is that your resume could be all bs

MK, from your earlier utterances, it appears you were in nappies when I began programming.

An interviewer, to whom my resume is bs, will ask dopey or irrelevant questions, or dream up some weird and wonderful "test", which will indicate to me that I will be better off elsewhere. It will be a lop-sided interview.

My resume lists the places at which I have worked, and my accomplishments therin. A sensible interviewer would ask about how I did what I did, why I did it and what problems I may have encountered. It will be an interview of equals.

The jobs I've accepted have all followed the latter format.

The question of "What do you think you would be doing in 5 years time" bores me, I come up with the answer probably sending you on your way if I find out your not productive.

"Thinking".

The other one is "Do you like working in a team or by your self". I give examples of both situations.

UnemployedIter: You should answer the first one with probably on the Dole Queue or sitting at home reading BrainBox when I should be filling out my Dole Diary.

Then when your finished with Work for the dole you will have experience in working in groups at least.

Mc

I'll bet you're a hoot at parties.

1. How old are you?

2. What is your worst fault?

3. Why have you moved around so much?