We are in process to recruit a quality engineer in our company.
I must choose between 2 qualified people:

- one which has a 12 years experience in the same company: University then company .
the other has 12 years experience but in 4 companies of different disciplines (3 years in each one): University then company 1 then company 2 then company 3 then company 4.

which are the advantages one on the other?

For me 12 years is a sign of stability but at the same time experience in only one field .
On the other hand 4x3 years raises the question concerning the frequent displacement of the other person.

Waiting please for the opinion of the experts .

12 years at one company...I would be careful that the person my have been focused in only one area of quality.
The person that has had 4 different jobs most likely has a wider range of experience form technical, management style, personnel differences.
I would check references and lean toward the person with a wide range of experience.

Phil

We are in process to recruit a quality engineer in our company.
I must choose between 2 qualified people:

- one which has a 12 years experience in the same company: University then company .
the other has 12 years experience but in 4 companies of different disciplines (3 years in each one): University then company 1 then company 2 then company 3 then company 4.

which are the advantages one on the other?

For me 12 years is a sign of stability but at the same time experience in only one field .
On the other hand 4x3 years raises the question concerning the frequent displacement of the other person.

Waiting please for the opinion of the experts .

Libnani,

It´s hard for us to determine which one is a better candidate solely based on where each one accumulated his 12 years of experience... if the 12x1 guy has 12 years experience in the exact field of your organization, then he could be considered the better guy... but, in my opinion, you could get a guy that has 30 years experience that knows less about a field than a guy you has 2 years.... it all depends on what knowledge and experience they accumulated...

Is this is the only difference between the two candidates? There must be other differences so you can make a decision between the two...

We are in process to recruit a quality engineer in our company.
I must choose between 2 qualified people:

- one which has a 12 years experience in the same company: University then company .
the other has 12 years experience but in 4 companies of different disciplines (3 years in each one): University then company 1 then company 2 then company 3 then company 4.

which are the advantages one on the other?

For me 12 years is a sign of stability but at the same time experience in only one field .
On the other hand 4x3 years raises the question concerning the frequent displacement of the other person.

Waiting please for the opinion of the experts .

Now that their experience has got you to the position of considering them I personally feel the 12 years is pretty much an irrelavance now, what matters is to meet the people and assess them for your self

The 12 years in one company Engineer could be someone dedicated to their job or alternativley they could be someone in a comfort zone who can't deal or want to face change

Similarly the Engineer changing job every 3 years could be useless, or they could have been unfortunate with business closures or they could be a dedicated self improver who is always looking for new challenges and opportunitites.

It is your responsibility of the recruiter to meet and assess these people as to how their abilities & personalities meet your requirements. I know from personal experience of highly able people who thrive on a pressured environment but who when faced with a more relaxed workplace have failed completely

From an UK perspective.

Certainly from when I graduated, many years ago, it seemed to almost expected that technical graduates take at least two approx three year posts after University before settling down. Indeed many larger companies used to set up intake on that basis.

IMHO absolute time in a position is not as important as what you have done while you were there so I don't think its relevant beyond what The Moose explained.

In my opinion, value of the experience of each candidate as it gives value to YOUR company is only going to be determined by a GOOD interview with each candidate by SEVERAL people in your company, including, especially, the two steps who will be above him in the corporate hierarchy (his direct boss and the boss's boss.) We HOPE these two persons will be able to determine the candidate's knowledge and ability to work with them over a period of time.

Experience and knowledge are important, but so is the ability to "work and play well with others" to have an optimally productive team.

I suggest the interviewers prepare well for the interview so they don't waste their time or the candidate's with an ineffective interview.

Consider starting a new thread asking about interview "tips, tricks, and traps."

Dear all

thank you for your above answers , but i'm always confused .

Their potential superior interviews them also and he is confused like me !

I should mention here that we are a certifying body and we search for a quality engineer to be a lead auditor involved also in the business development .

the first guy has a deep knowledge in Quality but with electrical background only . (Quality responsible in transfo manufacturer)

the other doesn't have the same knowledge in quality (less internal audits ,...
less involved in the certification process , ..) but his knowledge covers construction , electrical installation , design reviews , olive oil manufacturer .and his position was a quality engineer not a quality responsible .

the position will be "Lead Auditor of different systems"
if I focus on "Lead Auditor" , i'll choose the first one
IF I focus on "different systems" , 'll choose the second one .:truce:

I have to agree, both are qualified (on paper) against the level of experience you're looking for. The decision making should be conducted after a thorough interview, they satisfy your technical requirements, the next step is to evaluate whether they will fit in with your company culture and the work atmosphere. At the same time you can ask probing questions in regard to their experience diversity, adaptability, personal goals, etc. I don't think your decision should be based on their experience levels as represented by work history though...this should only be a gatekeep requirement, the interview is where you should base your decisions.

As a CB looking for internal audit experience I would be compelled to select the candidate with more quality experience, as quality tools can be applied within any industry...olive oil manufacturing knowledge is limited.

Dear all

thank you for your above answers , but i'm always confused .

Their potential superior interviews them also and he is confused like me !

I should mention here that we are a certifying body and we search for a quality engineer to be a lead auditor involved also in the business development .

the first guy has a deep knowledge in Quality but with electrical background only . (Quality responsible in transfo manufacturer)

the other doesn't have the same knowledge in quality (less internal audits ,...
less involved in the certification process , ..) but his knowledge covers construction , electrical installation , design reviews , olive oil manufacturer .and his position was a quality engineer not a quality responsible .

the position will be "Lead Auditor of different systems"
if I focus on "Lead Auditor" , i'll choose the first one
IF I focus on "different systems" , 'll choose the second one .:truce:"Works and plays well . . ." is doubly important for the folks who have direct customer contact. I've had employees who were technical geniuses, but who could not be trusted in front of customer or supplier without another member of our company by his side because of a frequent failure to put his brain in gear before putting his mouth in motion.
Rarely a month goes by without a horror story here on the Cove of an auditor with no social skill.

I have to tell you when it comes to experience years don't mean a hill of beans!
I have seen the typical insert this many years > here...

Get them both in there, ask them the questions that matter to you, you can usually tell within a few minutes if that person is going to fit in your company.

I have a guy at my shop that boasts over 25 years experience! However you go out there at any given time and the guy can barely turn on a machine.

Good Luck!

K-

The days of staying with a company for a long period of time are fading.

Ford, DCX, GM are shedding thousands and thousands of engineers. Keep your eye out for B level people who would not survive a day working at a tier 1 or smaller.

Work stability?

Are customers, companies and market stable?

I agree with Wes Bucey. :agree1:

My thinking when I join a company is if I'm going to fit in their "organizational culture"? Will I share their vision and going to live the quality policy? An assertive approach will result in a good teamplayer or leader.

You need to check their communication skills and problem solving approach.

A knowledge of different quality systems gives a more broader perspective but you will need to know if he really knows them.

And, for the "Lead Auditor" thing, remember, there are courses for that. If she/he has plenty of experience doing QMS audits, it's just a minor gap that can be solved with a Lead Auditor training.

C ya and have a good weekend!

:tg:

From you post it seems that experience is the key focus point for this job. If this person is going to be an auditor, then experience would not be a big point gain wether it was for one or three companies. I think, if memory serves right, that the average number of jobs people have is about 5. I would look at knowledge of QMSs, communication abilities, approach to audits, systematic person, investigation techniques, etc.

We are in process to recruit a quality engineer in our company.
I must choose between 2 qualified people:

- one which has a 12 years experience in the same company: University then company .
the other has 12 years experience but in 4 companies of different disciplines (3 years in each one): University then company 1 then company 2 then company 3 then company 4.

which are the advantages one on the other?

For me 12 years is a sign of stability but at the same time experience in only one field .
On the other hand 4x3 years raises the question concerning the frequent displacement of the other person.

Waiting please for the opinion of the experts .

Truly an impossible question. They are both well educated and you cannot possibly know which one will be better suited for your needs. Not only is education a huge factor but so is attitude, personality, and the softer aspects that will round out the package.

That being said, if limited to only the education and work experience, I would have to select the 4x3 for some of the same reasons others have mentioned. The 1x12 is stable but may be very limited it broad applications and could possible be more apt to be stuck in paradigms. 4x3 has the broader experience, but I would investigate as to why they've been in 4 different companies and why the individual left. Perhaps that individual is difficult to work with and was let go...or perhaps the company (and corporate) were not a good fit for him and he chose to leave. Maybe they moved. Maybe....? I'd find out first.

Remember, on average a person only stays in one company for 5-6 years.

Such good responses so far.

I'd like to only add that stability is a question mark in itself. My dad job shopped in the day when longetivity was normal, largely because that's what he needed to do in order to advance.

Other good reasons for a short stay include the mentioned layoffs (been there done that, sigh) and a general restless feeling. My restless feeling may result from several years of military service, where we move from one command to another every so often. Thus four years in one job feels like a long time unless I get challenged enough.

A restless feeling can be a good thing if you don't mind the extra "maintenance" of always ensuring the engineer is challenged with added learning or applications of it.

There isn't any way of knowing from the hiring standpoint if 12 years in one place means a person was content with the treadmill or if there was no problem at all.

The fact is, a simple metric like 1x12 or 3x4 really says nothing at all about the applicants that we should base a decision on. While a person could well assume the 3x4 candidate has a richer set of experience, diversity of experience is only as good as what that experience was and what the candidate brings from it.

One word of caution regarding looking at their documented experience base as defined in their resumes. Due to my resume only providing my most recent 20 years of formal job experience it does not reflect my hobbies, interest, and prior experiences (such as: experience as a blacksmith, experience in an auto repair shop, lifetime as a shade-tree mechanic, 6 years of radio and TV repair [2 as a employee of a shop, and 4 in-home business], and over 20 years as a hobbiest gun-smith).

My point being that even if my resume reflected 30 years at one job, my experience base is much richer than what is documented. These things are what you're looking for in the interview sessions.

Thanks to all

Following your comments , i did a new analyse of the situation , i found that most of you are with the diversity of the experience especially for a lead auditor job .

then I decide to recruit the 4x3 years guy .:applause:
that's it !

3 yrs is a decent time for a career change. People like to change to have wide range of experience and not getting bored at one place.

Both are good. I will definetly depend on the Interview process and opinion of the key people in the company.

We have to be careful on peoples experience. The last three two jobs I have worked at only lastest 1 year each due to being layed off due to financial and/or changing direction of the company. The last company hired me to implement ISO-9000 and after 6 - 9 months decided to NOT pursue ISO. I thought no problem, let's work on something else but no, I was let go.

Previous to that, hired to manage a large (56) member inspection force. Management changed 11 months into the job and ALL middle managers in QA were layed off.

So I am in my third job in three years.

I am just about convinced that a company does not hire quality personnel until they are up to their eyeballs in alligators and start crying to drain the swamp.

So yes, under a lot of circumstances I would hire the 4x3 and not bat an eye about it.