Evidence
Our skill assessments are based on providing evidence. That evidence is provided by the applicant or the endorser, in written form, for each skill applied for.
We prefer newer evidence from the past 18 months from your time at Inviqa. If you don’t have examples from within this time frame (e.g.: if you have been on leave) you may provide examples from your previous job (if they will allow it), personal projects, or other outside examples.
The purpose of evidence
One key aim of our assessment processes is to be fair across everyone and to find a good mix of approaches on how to ensure this, from the individual perspective of an applicant as well as the assessment side of things.
As your assessors may not have worked with you, we are asking you to show them that you are capable of performing the skill at the level you are aiming for.
You need to show that you have a good understanding of each skill, and the spirit of what is intended at each level. It’s not enough to say, “I know this,” or “I have done this.”
Types of evidence
Types of evidence can include and should be a mix of:
- Specific examples
Feel free to use your own words explaining how you have been applying a skill in a few situations. Back it up with links to pull requests, Jira tickets, Slack discussions, documents, screenshots, metrics from systems that demonstrate an achievement, where appropriate. - Feedback from colleagues or clients
Please provide copied text or screenshots, as the assessors may not have access to the platform where the feedback is shared. Make sure that the feedback is referring to skills expectations ideally. - Anecdotal evidence
Demonstrate your experience or understanding through one or two paragraphs. For example, you may describe your approach and explain the impact for a topic such as iTAP, even if you have not had the opportunity to apply this skill at Inviqa.
Don't rely entirely on one type of evidence. For example, the credibility of anecdotal evidence for one skill is reinforced by strong specific examples or strong feedback for other skills, even if that evidence doesn't have direct relevance for the skill being reviewed.
Also, besides the evidence, make sure to point out to colleagues that are aware of the examples you share in your application or would be great candidates to collect some more generic feedback on a skill. The assessors might decide to reach out to them to get a deeper understanding or clarify something to solidify their judgement.
For example: For the Performance skill, you could describe a time when a project you were working on had a performance problem. This could include a summary of the problem, what you did to investigate it, how you found the source of the problem, and what you did to resolve it. The last could be a link to a commit or pull request of the fix within the project repository. Consider adding information that colleague John Doe reviewed your piece of work (or paired partially, …) on top of that.
What evidence should I use?
There is no limit to the amount of evidence you can provide for any given skill set. However, too much evidence risks losing good content in the details. As a rough guide, one page per skill is about right. Also make sure to consider its relevance to allow the assessors to focus.
Some evidence can be interpreted more objectively than others. For example, for a technical skill specific examples are often more valuable than feedback.
When linking to a PR or adding a screenshot, make sure that the actual emphasis on providing evidence for a skill is coming across clearly. A PR containing 20+ files, where 15 or more are unrelated to the case, isn’t easy to follow through for your assessors.
You can also check the following promotion application example for ideas on what type of evidence is considered satisfactory. Be aware though that this example is not a reliable indicator for amount and depth of evidence, rather consider it as a stimulus towards the variety of content possible.
General guidance
Can I reuse evidence?
Yes, it is okay to reuse relevant evidence for more than one skill. However, we encourage you to use some breadth of examples, as these provide a more meaningful insight into your abilities. If there would be only one case demonstrating your readiness of a next seniority level within your time with us, that would be slightly irritating, right?
How can I validate my approach?
We recommend that you have someone review your evidence, in addition to your line manager. Find another colleague to give you feedback: it's likely they can identify improvements or examples you may have missed. Consider someone who has experienced phrasing out evidence and succeeding with an application recently.
If you're aiming towards promotion, submit a few micro-credentials to "get practice" at putting together evidence. The micro-credential process is inherently more collaborative with your assessors, and is a good way to learn what kind of evidence is most impactful for what kind of skill.
It feels quite cumbersome to collect all that evidence on demand?
Admittedly, the amount of time and effort the process asks you to invest is not trivial. We are aware and are adjusting details to the process based on your feedback regularly. There is probably no promotion process out there that is working perfectly across the different personality types of colleagues and scales for all kinds of department sizes. If you feel there’s some adjustment to make, reach out. But also, make sure to familiarise with the process as it is.
We encourage you to see our progression framework detached from promotion and assessments and embed your progression aspirations into your working habits. The skill definitions can help you reflect on the requirements towards roles within Software Engineering, so reviewing and identifying areas of confidence and potential areas for improvement can and should be a regular activity for you (e.g. by pairing with your line manager on this).
To reduce the amount of effort, consider spreading it over time. For example, you could focus on one skill at a time, and collect evidence over a period of a few weeks during your daily work. You might be surprised how often you made use of your skills without even noticing. Some skills (such as Judgement) are much harder to find evidence for retrospectively, rather than actively identifying times when you are exhibiting these skills.
What to do with evidence that is inaccessible?
We have had situations in the past where access to specific evidence was lost. For example, the access for Inviqans was revoked to a client's repository or ticket system due to the end of a project.
We acknowledge that this may happen due to the nature of our project work. Please reference these cases anecdotally, potentially pointing out a colleague that you worked with who could act as a witness. You might also get feedback from the colleagues you worked with to help back up your anecdotal evidence.
Also, it might be that the applicant still does have access, but the assessor does not. If that happens, we will inform the applicant and ask for an alternative (for example, a screenshot of the linked evidence). If you think it's highly likely that your assessor will not have access to the resources you're linking to, please provide a screenshot or other attachment with your application. If time allows, the assessor may ask to pair with the applicant to go through a piece of evidence.
Overall advice on writing and content
- Search for instances of "we" and replace (where applicable) with how you had an effect on the outcome (whether that was you specifically who made a decision or you helped lead others to get to this).
- Make it easy for the reviewer to check against the job spec.
- Structure your answers appropriately
- Use PEE - point, explanation, evidence
- Use the STAR method - Situation, Task, Action, Result
- How did the evidence help change the wider landscape - what value did it create for whom?
- Ask "So What?" to my evidence.
- Make it scannable and aim for comprehension
- Avoid walls of text, add line breaks to break evidence up into digestible pieces.
- Use bullets where appropriate.
- No waffling: be precise.
- Be consistent in writing in tenses and person. Use good grammar.
- Format text consistently: don't use silly fonts or colours.