In the first part I described how I started out with the job desciption for a Test Analyst and why the first sentence was so important for me. In this part I'll go through the body of the job description.
This part is both describing what the applicant is expected to do in the job and what working in our company is like.
A new job is always a two way relationship. The employer is looking for the skills, personality, etc to fill a gap in their team. The potential candidate is looking for an interesting and rewarding place to work in so I try and address both.
Again this section is written tongue in cheek to give the potential applicant both an idea of what's required of them and to lure the right people into applying. In that first part I'm describing the part of personality I'm looking for, I mention some skills and hint at what level the candidate should be.
For someone experienced in ET the sentence ..."know your oracles from your heuristics" should be clear. I didn't want to put "Should have exploratory testing experience" as they keyword driven people would just put that in their CV and I'm none the wiser.
Asking the question "If you're not scared away by the above you may want to apply." should convey that yes, I'm asking for a lot but that I trust the applicant to be a confident and good tester and will welcome them with open arms.
The Principal Accountabilities section more closely resembles a traditional job spec. I nearly left it out as an experienced software tester would be able to do these tasks anyway. In the end I left it in as the tasks in there convey that I'm not only looking for a tester but also a facilitator that can make things happen with other teams and people in the business. Many testers do that but not all so I felt that it would explain to the potential candidate that this is a "get out of your chair and make it happen" job rather than one where the test manager or lead tell you what to do.
The Qualification section contains some standard stuff but also some controversial and opposing if not mutually exclusive statements, that Ajay has picked up on. The idea here is that the candidate asks for clarifications or state their opinion about it so that we can then have a good discussion about it during which we both get to know the others skill and opinion better than with standard interview questions. The idea for this came from the book Lessons Learnt in Software Testing which has opposing titles in chapter 6 about whether to use test document templates.
The bonus section for Qualifications is tongue in cheek again. I start that having no ISEB/ISTQB qualification is a good thing for me. The idea here is that
a) it's unusual and people take note - no skimming over this job description, I want your attention here
b) I don't think much of these certification programmes
c) If the tester doesn't have certificates, how do they educate themselves? Another opportunity for a good discussion
d) I want to see if people change their CV when applying for the job or if they send a generic one. Custom build CVs are more interesting to me - I'd like to see if they're interested enough in the job to put some effort into the CV or if they can't be bothered. Since I removed the chance for just putting in the keywords from the job spec by hardly mentioning any the custom CV should more closely reflect their real experiences.
The other items on the list are mostly nice to have's and cover a wide area so that almost everyone can tick one if not several of these boxes.
If the result is worth the effort you ask? No idea, yet, I'll find out soon. From the applications I've got so far I could easily see who read the job spec and who just skim read and send their generic CV. Makes my job easier as I can just bin the latter.