Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[jcuthrell AT ixl.com]

My... it's late... this is a ramble...

> <Delurk>

Keptin! Keptin!  She's appeared off our port bough!  Shields are failing!
(okay, I have no idea why Scotty would be on the bridge)

> Hello fellow geeks!  I'd like to get your feedback on 
> something that my HR department is struggling with.  They're 
> trying to better define job roles and functions for IT 
> developers within our company (Blue Cross/Blue Shield of NC:  
> 3000 employees, about 150 IT folks in my area).   They are 
> asking if the day-to-day functions and roles of a web 
> developer are sufficiently different from the day-to-day 
> functions and roles of a legacy system (mainframe) developer 
> to merit an entirely different job definition?

Yes, they are different... at least to most people on this list.  

Here's an example for Systems Administrator I, Programmer Analyst II, and
LAN/WAN Engineer II respectively.  You might not find this in an HR data
dictionary though.  Why?  The HR software might be hard coded to the last
time money was allocated to HR software.

This is the reason why some HR systems have titles and roles such as
Engineer I, Engineer II, Engineer III.  Engineer I might carry a pager and
reboot an NT server on weekends.  Engineer II might own the JSP directory
for a java app server and the backup responsibility for a CVS repository.
Engineer III might own all the fibre channel switching fabric configurations
that support clustered Oracle and maintain all VAN  router configurations --
probably takes lots of vacation too ;)

What are the chances when you hire these "Engineers" that you won't get
someone that wants to drive a choo choo train and wear one of those neat
caps?

A lot of folks on this list probably can share stories of horror or the
insanity of learning that the person hired for doing ethereal EJB
development was hired with a Database Administrator III title.  It happens.
Why?  Because software in HR systems can be very inflexible.  This is
another reason why contractors work out well.  Contractors can be called
"contractors" in a system.  You can hire who you want and you don't have to
retrofit HR systems to accomplish your project.

Lately, I've done a lot of work with healthcare related companies
(IDN's,VAN's,etc) and this is a common thing.  HR departments do not want to
know what java, fibre channel, or any of the other terms mean /unless/ it
has a direct impact on their ability to process benefits or hiring
practices.  Executives usually regard IT/MIS as a entity and not want to be
granular.  As far as cross training goes it is often a good thing to cycle
IT/MIS staff through each area of an organization so that they get exposure
to each customer (HR, Financial, Facilities, etc..).  If HR is tasked with
doing competency testing, education, or reviews there has to be a way to get
the right people the right materials and forms.

Your company, being a payer, is going to be much more heavy on the MIS/IT
intensive.  So, you would expect there to be more granularity when looking
at job descriptions.  You will have network security specialists, WAN
engineers, LAN engineers, Oracle/Sybase/SQL people, etc... and all the
associates, managers, directors, etc.. that go along with them.

> The intent is to use these job definitions to help guide 
> employees career-paths, cross-training opportunities, etc.  
> Some people are inclined to lump anyone who programs into one 
> "track", other people insist that web vs. mainframe 
> environments and required skill-sets are so different that 
> they need entirely different "tracks".

Again, it isn't just your HR department.  This is a problem that most IT/MIS
departments face when dealing with HR.  Typically, the only interactions
between HR and IT/MIS are where HR is a customer of IT/MIS.  Usually, it is
a struggle to support HR applications.  If you are fortunate -- you have
good communication between HR and the IT/MIS teams.   This can mean
job/career web content is promoted in a timely fashion and is accurate for
job functions that need to be filled.

There can be resume upload utilities that do more than just pop off an
email.  It can be placed on file server for viral scanning.  The resume can
be parsed for keywords.  etc.. etc... The wonderful thing about these
projects is that it forces the job descriptions to become more specific.
Otherwise, you just have one big resource pool -- great if you have a small
group but when you get over 40 people it gets messy.

> What do you think?  Thanks in advance for your input!

Is this an existing application they are moving away from or are they
looking to improve the listings for job family, grade, title, etc...?   Lots
of places have to contain the ambitions of changing titles to a data
warehouse project so that the dictionary doesn't have to have 1990-1993
hooks for when the VP of Engineering had a wild hair and flattened the
MIS/IT organization but still wanted to get general summaries from 1990-2000
this year for salary expenditures across the current job family for trending
reports at the next Board Meeting.  Yes, I made that one up...

Caveat:  I am on my sixth job title in just under two years with the same
company.  As long as my pay system/grade goes up too I like the HR
applications just fine. :)

-Jay

Jay Cuthrell
iXL, Inc.
919.783.6774 (phone) 253.323.2435 (e-fax)
919.349.7268 (cell)  jcuthrell AT ixl.com