Testing for (in)competence

[Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

     << Geoffrey Marnell <gmarnell -at- OZEMAIL -dot- COM -dot- AU>
     << Suppose that there is no accreditation process to help you select a
     << technical writer for a new project. Suppose, too, that you want to
     << create a simple test to help you select the best technical writer

     Geoff: (Nice name!)
        It's interesting to see debate on whether we should be tested for
     competence as part of the job interview process. Since I've never been
     interviewed without a test (always oral, usually written), I'm
     surprised to see that there's any debate on this at all! Nowadays,
     with dozens (if you're lucky) or hundreds of applicants for each good
     writing job, you've got to come up with some way of eliminating the
     "poseurs".
        Selecting a good writer isn't as hard as it sounds... or to be more
     precise, excluding the bad ones is easier than most of us think. Since
     you specified the context of an accounting manual, try this test: Ask
     the applicant to document how s/he fills in a deposit slip at the bank
     when the deposit comprises cash (rolled coins and bills), money
     orders, and cheques, and when there will be a cash withdrawl at the
     same time. In your instructions you should hint (but don't specify)
     that the depositor should also keep a record to update his/her
     bankbook, and if they do so (and add text on balancing the checkbook
     records) treat this as a bonus. Anyone who takes more than one page to
     document this procedure, or who can't do it _well_ in one page, should
     be excluded unless there is some justification for greater length
     (e.g., lavish illustration of the text with images of the deposit slip
     and detailed explanation of the fields, which would demonstrate the
     person is at least somewhat visually literate).
        Hope this helps!
     --Geoff Hart  #8^{)}  <--- attempt at visual literacy