Skip to main content

North 51 Xcelerator as a personal development tool

http://www.north51digital.com/content/filemanager/Xcelerator-Brochure-April-2010.pdf

I have been using our product called Xcelerator at work for personal development for a couple of months now and I have found the process excellent. Essentially the process is:

  • You rate yourself in a number of areas (such as technical skills, customer focus, commercial??acumen?for example) and provide some back up text on why you think you are at that level.?
  • Your manager(s) read your ratings and the justification and then complete their own part of it.?
  • You meet and discuss / compare
  • You set goals on how you can improve you current level
  • You start the process again.
Each area has x amount of levels and each level has a detailed explanation of what you are required to do to achieve this level. Obviously these details are set per company but I feel ours are very clear and make it easier to try and attain.?

Once you have completed the process once you and your managers can then add evidence that can support your move up to the next level, for example if you created a particularly excellent tender, that could be noted along with evidence (perhaps the tender file or a link to it on the network). Adding the evidence as you go along is a great idea as when it comes to your next review you aren't just trying to randomly remember things, you have specific pieces of evidence to talk about.

The other benefit of this process and the evidence I'm collecting is that I hope it will help in my application for IEng (Incorporated Engineer) at some point. As my HND is registered with the BCS (British Computer Society) as only part satisfying the requirements for IEng, and I don't have a spare couple of thousand pounds to the degree topup, I will probably have to go through a technical report and review process. I think the collation of all my work evidence will be extremely useful.?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An instantiated object should be "ok"

I've been QA'ing quite a bit of work recently and one common theme I've noticed across both Java and C# projects I have been looking at is that we occasionally open ourselves up unessacarily to Exceptions by the way objects are being created. My general rule of thumb (which I have seen mentioned in a Pluralsight video recently but also always re-iterate in various Robust Software talks I have done) is that you shouldn't be able to create an object and then call a method or access a property that then throws an exception. At worst, it should return null (I'm not going to moan about that now). I've created an example below. We have two Dojos, one is good and one is bad. The bad dojo looks very familiar though. It's a little class written in the style that seems often encouraged. In fact, many classes start life as something like this. Then as years go on, you and other colleagues add more features to the class and it's instantiation becomes a second

Accessing the UI Thread with Tasks in F#

I have a Windows Forms program written in F# that can deploy a code base to n number of sites at once (you select the sites you would like to deploy to and it goes off and completes a number of tasks (backing up current sites, various unpacking and moving of files etc... ). Once you start it, it begins it's merry journey and begins to update the UI with what has happened. At the moment this method of updating the UI is not pretty because the threads I am doing the work on can't update the UI so I perform some fiendery to make that happen (don't ask). I knew there was a better way using some newer .NET features but I just hadn't got round to having a fiddle yet. I have now found that if you use the built in Task class but break your code up in a nicer way and then chain the tasks together you can then pass the correct context into the task that you want to talk to the UI. Here's a little script to give you a feel for it. You can press the "start" butt

NESTA - Next Gen.

via nesta.org.uk Following on from an article on the BBC about Raspberry Pi, this next gen report has some interesting findings. The scariest stat which I picked out from the BBC website was "out of the 28,767 teachers who were awarded Qualified Teacher Status... in 2010, only three qualified in computing or computing science as their primary qualification" Having worked as a computer science teacher for a year in a school that was a specialist in Computing I can concur that the uptake in Comp Sci was woeful. 2 Students for A2... The other teachers backgrounds in Computer Science was also fairly woeful (most knowing a bit about Office but still a paltry amount even about that). I couldn't speak for my counterpart that I was covering however. I suspect they were fairly up on things. All in all what kills me is that Computer science is not a secondary level subject. Areas are often covered, a little in IT, a little in DT subjects (if kids choose Systems and Contr