@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Why is Hyper-V on the CV.
To show experience that is likely of value to the employer reading the CV.
That does not show experience. It's a word. Saying why you used HyperV. What is did. How it improved or solved something good... That shows the experience.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Saying that's not good as is should never have been wrong is just bollocks. Things go wrong, showing you can make them go the correct way is important.
This doesn't make any logical sense. It doesn't show that at all. It shows that disaster was avoided. It doesn't show why or by whom. Only that the CV writer wasn't a cause of the disaster. We don't know who proposed the consolidation, why the failure was considered, who made the decision or based on what criteria. It shows nothing positive about the CV writer at all, only that they didn't sabotage the project themselves by refusing to consolidate.
No. The fact that they are saying they consolidated using hyper-v, and if they why they did it, does show that the CV writer did it. Entirely.
It doesn't even mention or suggest that. It shows that they did the work, not that they made or influenced the decision.
That's why I'm saying 'consolidated saving X per year'. That to me says you did it. Other it's not be written.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
Example. I recently cut a company's development time in half. Saving them a fortune on employee costs and getting them to market way faster. Do I brag about it? No, because I didn't do anything impressive. I just showed them that fundamental good decision making was better than picking random gibberish out of their butts. I didn't fail, but I certainly can't brag about the decisions that I made. Sure, I'm better than the people who were making the decisions before. But their decisions were failures. They aren't to be used as a serious measurement for success on my part. For me to call that a success means I have to lower my own value to a level of being totally pathetic in order for that to be impressive - that's a big price to pay, lowering my own level so that one avoidance of failure looks like "a success by my personal standards."
That's what will happen with the CV. It drags down the person in order to make one small decision warrant being considered a success. Overall, it's a huge loss for one small win. It's like totally scrapping the war in order to win one tiny battle.
No. Showing you changed that failure to a success saving so much cash an time is a success, and is something you should brag about.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Saying that's not good as is should never have been wrong is just bollocks. Things go wrong, showing you can make them go the correct way is important.
This doesn't make any logical sense. It doesn't show that at all. It shows that disaster was avoided. It doesn't show why or by whom. Only that the CV writer wasn't a cause of the disaster. We don't know who proposed the consolidation, why the failure was considered, who made the decision or based on what criteria. It shows nothing positive about the CV writer at all, only that they didn't sabotage the project themselves by refusing to consolidate.
No. The fact that they are saying they consolidated using hyper-v, and if they why they did it, does show that the CV writer did it. Entirely.
And yes on your other points. Saying you stopped an idiot doing something idiotic by doing the great thing you did and Ankit that idiotic thing turn in to a successful thing... Is what should be shown. Saying goodbye Hyper-V tells me nothing...
Why is Hyper-V on the CV. The why makes you go to the yes pile. The word on its own sends out to the no pile.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
Right now, your suggestion for the CV is not to show success, but to show avoidance of total failure. Don't you see how those are not the same things?
Driving a taxi well, improving over baseline, doing things that aren't just expected as part of "showing up" - that's success in differing degrees.
Not driving into walls, people and lampposts is just "avoiding failure."
We brag about success, we don't brag about avoiding failure.
No, it's to show success, an why it was a success.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
So, we should assume all companies only ever make the correct decision and an IT employee never has to use their competence to steep a company in the correct direction, or discuss that they prevented the failure entirely, in SAM land? Crazy.
This not a logical point to have reached.
This shows how much the taxi and brick wall example holds. You feel that total incompetence isn't just common enough, but that avoiding it alone is enough to brag about.
Yes it is. Avoiding incompetence and going things the correct way, when before you the incorrect way was planned... Is something to brag about. 100%
So literally you now agree with my taxi / wall example?
No. The taxi/wall example was awful.
I'm disagreement with you. I'm saying sterile away from something bad to something good is worth bragging about.
You are saying it should have never remember bad to need to make that change. Well in a perfect world of course. But the world isn't perfect, an stopping the mistake is a success. And should be on the CV.
Saying that's not good as is should never have been wrong is just bollocks. Things go wrong, showing you can make them go the correct way is important.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
So, we should assume all companies only ever make the correct decision and an IT employee never has to use their competence to steep a company in the correct direction, or discuss that they prevented the failure entirely, in SAM land? Crazy.
This not a logical point to have reached.
This shows how much the taxi and brick wall example holds. You feel that total incompetence isn't just common enough, but that avoiding it alone is enough to brag about.
Yes it is. Avoiding incompetence and going things the correct way, when before you the incorrect way was planned... Is something to brag about. 100%
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Why are you saying I'm comparing to failure? No failure here.
IT is business. Business buying fifteen servers to do the job of one is failure. Period. That's what failure means in business - not doing things that are good for the business. You are cherry picking a massive failure (wasting $150K for no reason) and using that failure assumption (where did that come from?) to compare against "what was done."
Buying sixteen servers to do the job of one is literally just like driving the taxi into the brick wall. It's insane, illogical and no one that knows how to drive would do it. So you don't use avoiding brick walls as the baseline for success. You don't use 16,000% overprovisioning as the baseline for success, either.
I didn't say but 16 to do the job of one. I said buy one, where 16 was proposed. Showing you can help a company and steer them in a better direction saving money is a great thing.
But how did sixteen get propose and why was the company talking to someone looking to screw them like that and why was that taken seriously? See the problem? To make the Hyper-V deployment sound "cool" we have to throw the company competence under the bus. And in doing so, we take any value proposition that we add to it along with it because we've only demonstrated that "business smarts" are what was missing.
If the goal is to show business smarts, you can't push business smarts in front of the bus.
Because, whatever reason for any bad project. Whoever can stop bad solution for far better, should say that. Stopping the bollocks up project and putting something better in place is a success.
Not success that you want to brag about to someone else. Telling them that the place you worked for was incompetent but that you were at least "less incompetent" is absolutely not what you want to be showing off on your CV. You want people to want to hire you, not want to avoid you.
Why less incompetent? How is that a thing here? This is saying on the CV that you stopped the team from being incompetent... By actually being competent.
No, it shows that you feel imcompetence is the base line. And it only shows "less incompetence", nothing in it demonstrates competence.
Yes it does.Getting things done the correct way, where they were going to be done the wrong way before you changed it... IS COMPETENCE.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
And, like I said, if "abject failure" propositions are being considered, why not add in some even crazier ones - enough to inflate the success number to whatever you want? There is always someone willing to quote you any insanity in the hopes that someone is so clueless as to the think that the more that you spend, the better the deal. Someone will quote thirty, or even one hundred servers. And a few SANs to go with it. And networking gear. And fibre channel switches. And so forth. With that many servers, it would be easy to get quotes showing a savings in the millions. I mean truly trivial.
The number is trivial. Of course. I'm saying it's the fact that you prevented the f*** up that's important.
Right, and I'm saying two things....
- Don't put opinion numbers. If you dont' think it is important, why is it getting space on the CV?
- Don't use "abject failure" as a mark of success. That you HAD to prevent a problem like that is not something that you should be mentioning. No amount of mitigating a failure of that magnitude will look impressive - that's the taxi / wall problem.
Number 2 is wrong IMO. Saying you are able to stop a project and change it to stop failure is extremely important.
So, we should assume all companies only ever make the correct decision and an IT employee never has to use their competence to steep a company in the correct direction, or discuss that they prevented the failure entirely, in SAM land? Crazy.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Why are you saying I'm comparing to failure? No failure here.
IT is business. Business buying fifteen servers to do the job of one is failure. Period. That's what failure means in business - not doing things that are good for the business. You are cherry picking a massive failure (wasting $150K for no reason) and using that failure assumption (where did that come from?) to compare against "what was done."
Buying sixteen servers to do the job of one is literally just like driving the taxi into the brick wall. It's insane, illogical and no one that knows how to drive would do it. So you don't use avoiding brick walls as the baseline for success. You don't use 16,000% overprovisioning as the baseline for success, either.
I didn't say but 16 to do the job of one. I said buy one, where 16 was proposed. Showing you can help a company and steer them in a better direction saving money is a great thing.
But how did sixteen get propose and why was the company talking to someone looking to screw them like that and why was that taken seriously? See the problem? To make the Hyper-V deployment sound "cool" we have to throw the company competence under the bus. And in doing so, we take any value proposition that we add to it along with it because we've only demonstrated that "business smarts" are what was missing.
If the goal is to show business smarts, you can't push business smarts in front of the bus.
Because, whatever reason for any bad project. Whoever can stop bad solution for far better, should say that. Stopping the bollocks up project and putting something better in place is a success.
Not success that you want to brag about to someone else. Telling them that the place you worked for was incompetent but that you were at least "less incompetent" is absolutely not what you want to be showing off on your CV. You want people to want to hire you, not want to avoid you.
Why less incompetent? How is that a thing here? This is saying on the CV that you stopped the team from being incompetent... By actually being competent.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
And, like I said, if "abject failure" propositions are being considered, why not add in some even crazier ones - enough to inflate the success number to whatever you want? There is always someone willing to quote you any insanity in the hopes that someone is so clueless as to the think that the more that you spend, the better the deal. Someone will quote thirty, or even one hundred servers. And a few SANs to go with it. And networking gear. And fibre channel switches. And so forth. With that many servers, it would be easy to get quotes showing a savings in the millions. I mean truly trivial.
The number is trivial. Of course. I'm saying it's the fact that you prevented the f*** up that's important.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Why are you saying I'm comparing to failure? No failure here.
IT is business. Business buying fifteen servers to do the job of one is failure. Period. That's what failure means in business - not doing things that are good for the business. You are cherry picking a massive failure (wasting $150K for no reason) and using that failure assumption (where did that come from?) to compare against "what was done."
Buying sixteen servers to do the job of one is literally just like driving the taxi into the brick wall. It's insane, illogical and no one that knows how to drive would do it. So you don't use avoiding brick walls as the baseline for success. You don't use 16,000% overprovisioning as the baseline for success, either.
I didn't say but 16 to do the job of one. I said buy one, where 16 was proposed. Showing you can help a company and steer them in a better direction saving money is a great thing.
But how did sixteen get propose and why was the company talking to someone looking to screw them like that and why was that taken seriously? See the problem? To make the Hyper-V deployment sound "cool" we have to throw the company competence under the bus. And in doing so, we take any value proposition that we add to it along with it because we've only demonstrated that "business smarts" are what was missing.
If the goal is to show business smarts, you can't push business smarts in front of the bus.
Because, whatever reason for any bad project. Whoever can stop bad solution for far better, should say that. Stopping the bollocks up project and putting something better in place is a success.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Why are you saying I'm comparing to failure? No failure here.
IT is business. Business buying fifteen servers to do the job of one is failure. Period. That's what failure means in business - not doing things that are good for the business. You are cherry picking a massive failure (wasting $150K for no reason) and using that failure assumption (where did that come from?) to compare against "what was done."
Buying sixteen servers to do the job of one is literally just like driving the taxi into the brick wall. It's insane, illogical and no one that knows how to drive would do it. So you don't use avoiding brick walls as the baseline for success. You don't use 16,000% overprovisioning as the baseline for success, either.
I didn't say but 16 to do the job of one. I said buy one, where 16 was proposed. Showing you can help a company and steer them in a better direction saving money is a great thing.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
A company doesn't care you consolidated. A company does care that you saved the board money which can then be reinvested or paid back to them. Money is the key.
Yes, money IS the key. Exactly why you don't want to put in easily disputed opinions of value based on abject failure as the comparison.
This is like being a taxi driver and every day claiming that you saved the company $30K by not driving your taxi into a brick wall. Sure, you COULD have driven the taxi into a brick wall and lost all that money. But "not failing" is not how you evaluate your value in IT (or anything.)
It's exactly because money matters that you never put something like this on a CV. And because they can't evaluate the internal decisions from the previous job, and are hiring you to do technical work that is applicable to them and not to the previous company, that you put what matters for THEIR money on the resume.
Remember also, saving $100K to a company with a $100K budget is a huge deal, to one with a billion dollar budget means nothing. All of the details that would make the savings meaningful are left out - which tells a hiring manager that money is not understood. Hence my concern - the last thing you want to do is demonstrate a lack of understanding of money when money is what matters.
That taxi example is just silly.
My point exactly, it's silly exactly like this is.
No. The example I gave isn't silly. The Taxi example is. A professional in a Taxi company could say 'Hybrid Cars'. Or they could say 'Hybrud Cars were rolled out to the FL saving X over annual maintenance' - for example. Thats a closer comparison. Not 'driving in to a wall'.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
A company doesn't care you consolidated. A company does care that you saved the board money which can then be reinvested or paid back to them. Money is the key.
Yes, money IS the key. Exactly why you don't want to put in easily disputed opinions of value based on abject failure as the comparison.
This is like being a taxi driver and every day claiming that you saved the company $30K by not driving your taxi into a brick wall. Sure, you COULD have driven the taxi into a brick wall and lost all that money. But "not failing" is not how you evaluate your value in IT (or anything.)
It's exactly because money matters that you never put something like this on a CV. And because they can't evaluate the internal decisions from the previous job, and are hiring you to do technical work that is applicable to them and not to the previous company, that you put what matters for THEIR money on the resume.
Remember also, saving $100K to a company with a $100K budget is a huge deal, to one with a billion dollar budget means nothing. All of the details that would make the savings meaningful are left out - which tells a hiring manager that money is not understood. Hence my concern - the last thing you want to do is demonstrate a lack of understanding of money when money is what matters.
That taxi example is just silly. Why are you saying I'm comparing to failure? No failure here. I'm saying by explaining in a brief way what was done and why, is far better than just listing a word. Anybody can send me a page listing various words in IT. I care not for that. I want a short reason of why that word was listed to actually show some depth.
Like I said, we'll have to disagree on this one.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Hyper-V.
^ that doesn't say much.Hyper-V consolidation; prevented a costly replacement of 16 physical servers to one more powerful Hyper-V host saving the company over 120k.
^ says far more impressive stuff. I'd want to bring you in and ask more about that. Not about the one word 'Hyper-V'.No, the second isn't impressive, it is filler and speculative. It doesn't show that something smart was done, it compares what was done against abject incompetence. Hyper-V may be too little, but the subjective opinion as to value or adding in totally useless details look like desperate filler at best and outright deception or incompetence at worst. I would avoid this.
As a hiring manager what I see in a line like that is a poor understanding of the reasonable value comparisons combined with having worked in an environment where value is difficult to perceive because the bar is set so low.
We'll have to disagree here. One shows a word. The other shows some thought and deeper understanding.
I don't agree, it shows a misunderstanding. You can state that you did a consolidation project. But stating the savings suggests a huge misunderstanding of the project and how to evaluate it.
It really doesn't. If you are unable to show savings made between solutions, and able to show how your solution is better and saves money, then you are missing something critical.
You can't. He didn't compare it to KVM or Xen, it's being compared to "failure." This is my point. It's a false, opinion of value, not actual value. That's why it is SO important not to put it there. Because it shows both a certain level is misunderstanding of IT valuations or at least suggests it. How did Hyper-V save so much money compared to other options that are just as free? It looks like the resume writer is confused or just lying.
It could equally show off hypervisors. That's not the point. The point is why any hypervisor bwas used... Why any consolidation was done.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Hyper-V.
^ that doesn't say much.Hyper-V consolidation; prevented a costly replacement of 16 physical servers to one more powerful Hyper-V host saving the company over 120k.
^ says far more impressive stuff. I'd want to bring you in and ask more about that. Not about the one word 'Hyper-V'.No, the second isn't impressive, it is filler and speculative. It doesn't show that something smart was done, it compares what was done against abject incompetence. Hyper-V may be too little, but the subjective opinion as to value or adding in totally useless details look like desperate filler at best and outright deception or incompetence at worst. I would avoid this.
As a hiring manager what I see in a line like that is a poor understanding of the reasonable value comparisons combined with having worked in an environment where value is difficult to perceive because the bar is set so low.
We'll have to disagree here. One shows a word. The other shows some thought and deeper understanding.
I don't agree, it shows a misunderstanding. You can state that you did a consolidation project. But stating the savings suggests a huge misunderstanding of the project and how to evaluate it.
It really doesn't. If you are unable to show savings made between solutions, and unable to show how your solution is better and saves money, then you are missing something critical.
A company doesn't care you consolidated. A company does care that you saved the board money which can then be reinvested or paid back to them. Money is the key.
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Hyper-V.
^ that doesn't say much.Hyper-V consolidation; prevented a costly replacement of 16 physical servers to one more powerful Hyper-V host saving the company over 120k.
^ says far more impressive stuff. I'd want to bring you in and ask more about that. Not about the one word 'Hyper-V'.No, the second isn't impressive, it is filler and speculative. It doesn't show that something smart was done, it compares what was done against abject incompetence. Hyper-V may be too little, but the subjective opinion as to value or adding in totally useless details look like desperate filler at best and outright deception or incompetence at worst. I would avoid this.
As a hiring manager what I see in a line like that is a poor understanding of the reasonable value comparisons combined with having worked in an environment where value is difficult to perceive because the bar is set so low.
We'll have to disagree here. One shows a word. The other shows some thought and deeper understanding. It's purpose isn't to sound impressive, but to show reason and some depth as to why the word is on the CV/resume.
@eddiejennings said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
@jaredbusch said in Resume Critique:
@jimmy9008 said in Resume Critique:
Expand on your points. What has consolidation provided to the business? What else have you setup? I'm sure going from 'N' aged servers to 'X' new hosts under support, has helped improve performance and reliability? Have you a second host with Hyper-V replica in place? Mention that...
None of that should be mentioned on the resume. that is detail stuff that you discuss in an interview.
From all my experience, at least here in the UK, leaving such things out put you in the bin pile, before even getting you to the position to discuss those things. The CV says 'Hyper-V', so what... If it doesn't give any actual details it's just a word anybody could have copied and pasted. Details are key.
That seems to be the difference between a CV and resume, is it not? The CV is designed to be a detailed history whereas the resume is supposed to be succinct.
In the UK they are the same thing, I think. A one or two page document giving an overview. But, still with key details. As in:
Hyper-V.
^ that doesn't say much.
Hyper-V consolidation; prevented a costly replacement of 16 physical servers to one more powerful Hyper-V host saving the company over 120k.
^ says far more impressive stuff. I'd want to bring you in and ask more about that. Not about the one word 'Hyper-V'.
If you are just somebody that does a copy/paste on IT words, without any actual details, bin.
IMO, tell why you'd those things. If you say Hyper-V, and don't say why, you lose to the person that did.