About Recruitifier - The First Culture Specific Software Professionals Ranking Search

Unique Benefits

Recruitifier.com automates technical and cultural pre-screening of software developers and architects for medium to large line-of-business applications development.

Few extremely experienced and technical resume readers can tell with certainty if a person ever worked in a great mature team based on a resume alone, not having to go to lots of expensive interviews, which fail too often even when they succeeded. Recruitifier.com scales out to masses this resume reading and pre-screening art.

Recruitifier covers application sizes from M (take a couple of months) to XL (take many years). Our advice is to use top of Agile or Waterfall culture for XL applications, and bottom of Cowboy/Mix culture for M applications.

Recruitifier.com unique benefits:

  • Automated technical pre-screening
    • See only technical people that have skills for large line-of-business applications
      • See only people that use technology components that comply with scalable architecture for large line-of-business applications
    • True skills from the best teams
    • See only people who aim for quality code and automate quality control
    • See only experienced full stack developers and architects
    • See people with better or more modern skillsets first
    • Users do not need search and technical knowledge
    • Match technical people to an application type, like Mobile native, Web-UI or Web service.
  • Automated cultural fit pre-screening for Agile, Waterfall and Cowboy/Mix cultures

How do we find exceptional people?

Let's face it, hiring software developers has always been very difficult, laborious and expensive, and still too many projects failed.

But we do not think you need to grind through hundreds of possible matches, prepare elaborate work unrelated puzzles, or conduct very many expensive time consuming phone and face-to-face multi-hour interviews for a month or more, with mere 1/15 success ratio at each stage. Current screening process consumes enormous time from multiple people but without yielding decent results. Software developers rarely suffer from logical reasoning problems, but too many of them struggle with abstract conceptual thinking. Abstract struggles show themselves when it comes to theory, modeling, architecture, frameworks and the best practices. Too few professional developers understand and can use the very basics of object-oriented programming like polymorphism. There is simply no substitute for the correct questions, skills and knowledge, and if an employer team does not have those yet, any big project is almost destined for bad hires and a painful run. Overall the screening process should be so much simpler, and now it is.

We believe that you can make much more correct conclusions about people simply by looking at their history: what specific professional choices candidates have already made , and how much they have learned so far, what they have chosen to learn, and how well all those things are directly connected to your specific problems, and to your team and organizational culture. Then hire those who made good and bold choices and did not give up learning. You can do it after a small coding / refactoring / architecture task in a real development environment coupled with a simple 30-120 minutes interview. The purpose of such interview is simply to make sure that you deal with the same person who compiled the resume. Or you can even hire people from top of our list without an interview at all (let's say you do not have any resources) and still have much better success probability than average in software industry (about 70% of software project fail each year BTW).  We expect that you should have as high as 8/10 interview success ratio with Recruitifier, if its filters are filled in correctly, as well as smooth and reliable project runs afterwards. Yes, there is still some legwork left: connecting with some of found candidates, figuring out their availability and willingness to switch and a desired rate (maybe we will remove some of that work in future). But this work is cheap and easy to outsource. Depending how much you are willing to save on recruitment fees, that remaining work can be done by your company or by an external recruiter.

  • Note that we expect 8/10 success ratio from our engine only if your culture is Agile. For Waterfall and Cowboy / mix cultures we expect decent and much better than average success ratio, but lower than 8/10.

And no, we do not believe that there is only one correct solution for all of the problems - we assume a lot of healthy variation. Our assumption of multiple correct solutions and choices makes our ranking search engine quite complicated internally, but brings many more strong people to the table.

Developers quite often do not have an option to choose technologies they work with, but they choose what to learn next, and they choose teams. And teams choose processes, technologies and developers that are alike and of the same caliber, so those things tell a lot in combination. Mature well organized teams will choose either mature and capable or junior but very talented fast learning individuals. So we also make sure that you find people mostly from mature properly organized and well-managed teams that lead IT industry with their technology choices.

The most efficient software developers are full stack developers. Such approach eliminates time wasted on coordination (like emails and meetings) between several implementers of the same feature, and filters out beginners. Recruitifier searches only among full stack developers that are capable to implement any new feature or use case end-to-end on their own. We only search for developers that use the modern, architecturally sound, scalable and testable technology options for all stack components. Because many effective technologies are quite comprehensive and hard to master, it usually takes more than 5-8 years simply to know them all well (and there are things like architecture that add more time to master). Most of developers simply give up learning, and as the result get filtered out by Recruitifier search engine. Also quite often certain types of developers make architecturally unsound technology choices based on lack of knowledge, fear and misunderstood job security, so they end up always avoiding the most powerful technologies.

  • Note, that end-to-end is defined from the perspective of whatever Application Type and Hardware Type filters that you select in Recruitifier. So if you have selected Web-service, your end-to-end feature looks like a new Web-method with all supporting backend and database changes. And if you have chosen Real Time / Windows Workstation, your end-to-end feature looks like a new GUI feature, assuming you have a message queue or other real time data source already implemented / available.

All these factors re-enforce each other and allow us to find the best talent by looking for all of them at once, but not forgetting about a lot of healthy variation. –There are usually multiple good solutions.

Will our search engine bring a value to you?

On a positive side you do not have to be technical any more to hire great technical people. On a negative side, our solution will not benefit everyone, because it is very opinionated. By "architecturally sound, scalable and testable technology options" above we mean mostly technologies that revolve around Domain Model and Layers architectural patterns, object-oriented and functional programming paradigms. If the problems that your teams or clients solve are extremely simple, they may be settled on a less scalable or not so testable foundation. In that case it is likely better for you to find much more cheaper and junior developers somewhere else, and our search and ranking engine is likely be an overkill for you. But if your problems take months or years to implement, and you need solutions that humans can understand and solutions that grow smoothly with complexity, we expect you ending up extremely satisfied with our search.

Pros:

  • Recruitifier engine brings you full stack developers that have the skills to tackle the most complex and challenging projects even on their own.
  • There is a filter for an application type (e.g. mobile apps).
  • You do not have to be technical to use Recruitifier, you just need to know what you or your client are going to build. You are not required to know what "Full Stack", ASP.NET or JavaScript are.
  • Recruitifier uses LinkedIn and other public resume sources, so the original search pool is very large and it is not limited to freelancers. Recruitifier.com is likely to be the best source if you are looking for local people or would like to hire, and it potentially can also be useful if you are looking for freelancers.

Cons:

  • Recruitifier finds the most of its matches on LinkedIn, and you are not guaranteed to get response to your LinkedIn invitation, especially if it is not personalized with your position or project description.
  • Only Microsoft stack is supported at the moment.

If you are a one man recruiting company or a recruiter without a very technical background, on one side you gain a competitive edge vs. most recruiters. And on another side your life becomes very easy, because we only ask you few not so technical questions, like an application type and management culture of your client. And you never forget to ask those questions your Client.

If you are a very experienced recruiter with heavy technical background, you will be inclined to think that our search engine is of no benefit to you, because you already make good money and are quite happy with your results the way you work now. But let's consider a few questions:

  • How much money do you spend on LinkedIn recruiter subscription?
  • How many potential employers and employees added your email address into their spam filters, e.g. because you do not know how to tell Agile developers apart from Waterfall or Cowboy?
  • What is your found / reviewed to submitted candidates ratio for your own handcrafted search queries?
  • What is your submitted to placed candidates ratio?
  • What is your placed to retained for more than a year ratio?
  • What project success percentage do your clients have?
  • How much time do you spend constructing complicated Boolean search queries for new clients from your clients' stated requirements? And if your search queries are not so complicated, are not you under- or over-filtering?
  • How often they or you mistype or forget something and go back and forth?

If all your ratios are above 80% and you do not spend any significant time constructing very complicated Boolean searches for new clients and discussing all their keywords, you will not benefit from our engine.

If you are a direct employer, it is unlikely that you are happy with your answers or even know them. Maybe you are happy with your retention ratio and project success ratio at most, but even in that case you should see possibilities for more productivity and projects costs reduction.

Who are our engine users and beneficiaries?

  • End client hiring manager, small business owner and any direct employer who searches for right candidates for their project on their own to avoid recruiting fees.
  • Anyone with money, sales capabilities or connections, but without much of technical knowledge, can now open their own software consulting company and get the right people to do the job without much hustle. Even established software consultancies would greatly benefit from our search by reducing their grinding and interview effort as well as from much better end client satisfaction.
  • One man or small recruiting company
  • Recruitment company owner willing to increase number of clients and placements without having to hire new recruiters or having to train and re-purpose them technically. You want to expand and spend less time on new clients but have larger percentage of them happy at the same time. Recruitifier allows you to scale effortlessly.
  • Recruitment company owner who wants to save money on LinkedIn subscription.
  • Recruiter, especially if he/she works for a new client / new team, or if he does not have a very extensive development background in the target area (which is likely very often the case).
  • Hiring manager or business owner can ask recruiters to use our search to save his/her time and eliminate most of spam and back and forth. This is especially relevant if you start new project differently. E.g.: new application type (e.g. BI or Real Time), new technology stack (you are Java shop that received .NET project), new architecture, new methodology (e.g. if you really want to transition to real Agile / Lean fast and effectively). In such cases you will not know or it will be hard to articulate your requirements to recruiters, even if you prefer to work via recruiters.
  • Hiring manager or business owner can check if a submitted candidate shows up in our search results to save time on interviews. -It is totally possible that the right candidate has been over-filtered by our system, because he or she omitted some important details, nevertheless interviewing such people can be a rather expensive process because of a much lower success to failure ratio.
  • Recruitment company may use our search engine as a recruiter training tool.
  • Sales person in software consulting company can use our engine to profile the company's stuff for suitability to specific projects or figure out better whom and how to sell.

Why do not people respond to my connection requests?

Avoid using a default standard "I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn." connection request text, please. We advise to personalize your request text with the person name, short description of your position and a link to the full description.

Common screening mistakes we avoid

  • Misapplying one application type required skills as required skills for another application type
    • E.g. requiring OS and Real Time application skills like multi-threading and sorting algorithms from line-of-business Web-application developer.
      • Note: In line-of-business applications complex algorithms like sorting are almost always already implemented and simply re-used without any modifications. Writing new complex algorithms is an extremely rare case. Much more often big complex methods are just a poorly structured code. Enterprise developers need to know recursion and complex database queries skills, but that is about it.
  • Over-filtering and under-filtering at the same time
    • E.g. searching by a single JavaScript framework like AngularJS, searching by WPF but not by Silverlight, and at the same time not looking for testability and solid data access and data manipulation skills at all.
  • Forgetting about complexity management skills, like basic architecture, refactoring, test automation, modeling and so on.
  • Forgetting about cultural fit, e.g. values, management style and methodology preferences, or not understanding culture meaning and importance.

How do we match cultures?

In our experience major contributors in high turnover among top developers are low quality legacy code base and organization reluctance to acknowledge and tackle it. This is a classic cultural misfit due to absence of cultural fit screening process or and unrealistic wishful estimation of the current organizational culture. Such organization’s top management would benefit by either committing to real cultural changes, or stopping their wishful thinking and starting to hire more old school or cowboy developers. Low quality legacy code base is a problem for a vast majority of organizations, by the way, and it will show up as interview failures by either of sides as well.

There are 2 dominating management culture approaches: one is based on discipline, command and control, and another is based on self-discipline, self-organization and transparency. Either way, both Agile and Waterfall rely on some kind of discipline and (lighter or heavier) process. There are also plenty of people and organizations that do not have any kind of discipline, or that are in the transition process, or that try to mix these 2 opposites somehow. Mixes take the most time and effort to figure out properly (80/20 rule applies).

  • Command and control / waterfall culture people will value flexibility and configurability over simplicity and try to predict and avoid future changes. Such preference shows up in their choices and decisions.
  • Agile / lean culture people will reply that simplicity is flexibility, and will make quite different technological choices as a result.

We simply analyze the end result, such as a profile or a resume, and group accordingly.

How do we eliminate fake skills?

People need jobs, and they may fake skills in their resume quite often either being desperate, or trying to bloat their pay rate above their real experience. But when people temper / exaggerate skills they do not know what usually goes with what, and they do not know what exactly our engine is looking for and what skills to put. They may end up with mutually contradictive options as well. Those who have to fake skills usually did not have experience working in great teams, they do not know what those teams use, and how to tell which team is great. Recruitifier will see it all. So we have found and tested a trick – Recruitifier searches for multiple keywords related to the same skill, and looks for all components of a cohesive stack simultaneously. As of today, this trick does solve the problem, and in future we will add other features. Of course a search bot will not determine the level of each skill exactly, and it makes sense to confirm critical skills with a small coding / refactoring / architecture task in a real development environment coupled with a short 30-120 minutes interview. You still need such coding task and an interview at least to make sure that your candidate did not simply copy his/her resume from someone else's. But now such interviews can be short and basic, and employers would need only a few of them, because Recruitifier pre-filtered resumes based on technological patterns from the best teams, so most of the candidates have already been screened successfully by those teams before. Employer needs to check only some of the facts and skills randomly.

  • Note that even though our engine may eliminate 80-90% of fake or obsolete skills for Agile culture, it will do decent but less impressive job for Waterfall and Cowboy / Mix cultures.

Should I always use Agile culture filter then?

-No, we do not recommend using Agile for every team and organization, because if there is a cultural mismatch, then a one or both sides will likely not like each other and either side is likely to fail your interview, or you will incur severe retention problems later on. If you are a recruiter onboarding a new client, you should ask whether hiring manager values simplicity over flexibility or any other indirect questions. (If you ask directly, you are likely to get a wishful thinking response). Also you may try candidates from different cultures and see who they liked more. For small and simple projects discipline and culture matter less, and Cowboy / Mix is not a bad option. For bigger projects we recommend to pick a side and choose either Agile or Waterfall depending what is more natural to you or your client's management style.

Do employers always have a clear idea about their requirements?

-No. New projects, new types of applications, new technology stacks are especially problematic. Also employers have easier time to articulate what they do not want, rather then what exactly they are looking for.

Do recruiters always have a clear idea about their client's requirements and how to match them?

-No, recruiters have clear picture and full knowledge even less often than employers. They gradually get a better picture after their candidates fail asking why they fail though.

Does our engine always have a clear idea about your requirements?

-Initially we have no idea about your requirements really. But when you make few simple but honest selections such as your technology stack, application type and culture, you will be very happy with the results without spending much time and effort.

Provided "How" information is too high level

-Sorry, we cannot provide you very detailed and specific justification to avoid copy-cats and to make faking skills very difficult. Also many things are subject to change as per your feedback.