Resume Builder Project

MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Dr. Rose Norman Greg Sturgeon April 26, 2004 SUBJECT: A Report on the Feasibility of Using a Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Résumé Project Enclosed is my final project for EH 502, entitled ―A Report on the Feasibility of Using a Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Résumé Project,‖ submitted on April 26, 2004. Based on an evaluation of three available résumé builders (two online, one off-the-shelf) and an exploration into the possibility of developing one specifically for the IPT project, I have concluded that none of the evaluated résumé builders adds sufficient value to the creation and editing of résumés. The custom résumé builder would offer the best improvement over the current system, but it too is not recommended at this time because of the tremendous input of resources it would require. The IPT 2005 résumé project should use the same résumé development and editing processes as were used this year, and further study should be conducted to determine the exact costs of developing a custom résumé builder. The purpose of my report is to evaluate résumé builders, and determine whether any would be feasible for the IPT 2005 résumé project. The report begins with background material describing the current procedures for creating and editing résumés. Evaluation criteria are then established, based on scholarly research and on interviews with students, faculty, and a UAH career counselor. The report then details the results of my evaluations of three available résumé builders, and of my study of the feasibility of developing a custom résumé builder for the IPT résumé project. The report concludes with recommendations for the 2005 IPT résumé project. You will notice that I have replaced ResumeMaker Deluxe, which had been listed as an evaluation candidate in earlier drafts, because the manufacturer, Individual Software, did not send the demo copy in time to be evaluated for this report. I have also generally chosen to use the term ―résumé‖ instead of ―resume,‖ except in URLs (where the accent marks cause errors if you copy and paste from the report into the address window of a web browser) and in product names (where I respected the original spellings). Sincerely, Gregory H Sturgeon Enclosure: Final Report (Bound Copy) 3.5‖ Floppy Diskette A Report on the Feasibility of Using a Résumé Builder for the IPT 2005 Résumé Project prepared by Greg Sturgeon for Professor Robert Frederick Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Alabama in Huntsville EH 502: Problems in Technical Editing April 26, 2004 Informative Abstract Each year, upper-level undergraduate students in electrical and mechanical and aerospace engineering have the opportunity to participate in a capstone project called IPT (for ―Integrated Product Teams‖). The IPT project gives them hands-on experience designing a real product for a real client. One of the additional requirements is to develop a résumé, because most of these students are graduating seniors who will be entering the work force soon. The résumés that they create are edited and published by undergraduates in CM/EH 302, Technical Editing, taught by Dr. Rose Norman. The current procedures used to create and edit résumés are effective but not ideal. At issue was whether an available résumé builder would improve the résumé creation and editing processes. The current procedure for creating and submitting a résumé requires each student to download a set of instructions and a template document (in Microsoft Word format) from a web site developed by Dr. Norman. Students are instructed to enter their own information into the template, then upload it to an online database called Quickbase. From there, the editing students download the résumés and edit them through three cycles. The résumés are then published in a booklet and on a web site for potential employers to view. In order to evaluate the résumé builders, it is necessary to establish selection and evaluation criteria. The selection criteria consist of: compatibility with Windows 2000 and XP; availability of a demo copy; editable document file output (e.g., Word, HTML, etc.); and availability of technical support. Each selected résumé builder was then evaluated on how well it: allows multiple formats; allows users flexibility within preset categories; allows users to quickly learn the interface; allows users to add large amount of information; maintains information in a secure manner; and improves the editing process. Three résumé builders were evaluated using the criteria listed here. AutoResume.com offered users some flexibility of format, but not of content. This résumé builder also did not allow users to enter as much information as the model IPT résumé contained. It also had no stated privacy policy. ResumeEasy.com, another online résumé builder, offered more format choices and allowed more content, but otherwise resembled AutoResume.com. A third résumé builder, Résumé Builder 3.15 by Sarm Software, was a desktop application, not online. It offered the most flexibility of content and design, and alleviated the security problems of the online résumé builders. All three were easy to learn and use, but none of the three added any improvement to the editing procedures. An alternative consideration was to develop a résumé builder specifically designed for the IPT résumé project. A custom résumé builder would allow the most flexibility and could be designed to produce whatever format and document type was required. It would also require a tremendous outlay of resources up-front to develop, and would require more maintenance than the other résumé builders. The conclusion is that none of the evaluated résumé builders really serves the needs of the IPT project. It is recommended that the IPT project continue the current processes for résumé writing and editing, while continuing to explore the possibility of developing a custom résumé builder. ii Table of Contents List of Illustrations ............................................................................................. iv Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 Current IPT Résumé Creation/Submission Process ........................................ 2 Current IPT Résumé Editing Process ............................................................... 3 Criteria for Selecting and Evaluating Résumé Builders .................................. 4 Evaluation of Résumé Builders ......................................................................... 7 Feasibility of Developing a Custom Résumé Builder .................................... 12 Conclusions............................................................................................................... 14 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 16 References ................................................................................................................. 17 Recommended Reading: Résumé Formats and Uses ...................................... 18 APPENDIX: Graphic Comparison of Résumé Builders Evaluated for This Project ATTACHMENT 1: From http://mortonweb.uah.edu/ipt2004/resume_info.htm: ―IPT 2004 Résumé Instructions‖ ―Instructions for Submitting Your Résumé Through Quickbase‖ ‖Tips for Résumé Creation‖ ‖Résumé Frequently Asked Questions‖ ATTACHMENT 2: Résumé Template and Models ATTACHMENT 3: Key Source: Lee R. Duffus, ―Comparative assessment of the résumé and the personal strategic plan: Perspective of undergraduate business students, human resource professionals, and business executives.‖ From Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge (September 2002) iii List of Illustrations Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Table A-1: “Education” Input Form, AutoResume.com ............................................ 8 Key Words Entered in “Objective” Input Form, AutoResume.com ....... 9 Sample Input Screen for ResumeEasy.com .......................................... 10 Screen Capture of Resume Builder 3.15 Editor .................................... 12 Graphic Comparison of Résumé Builders ........................................... A-1 iv Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 1 Introduction Each year, upper-level undergraduates in mechanical and aerospace engineering, along with students in electrical engineering and other disciplines, participate in a capstone course project called the Integrated Product Team (IPT) project. The IPT project is designed to give the students a hands-on opportunity to apply what they’ve learned in their courses. They work in cross-disciplinary teams to design a product for a real-world client, to solve a real-world problem. Because the students who participate are almost all about to enter the work force, the students are required to create résumés to be published in a booklet and on a web site. The résumés are edited by an undergraduate technical editing class, CM/EH 302, taught by Dr. Rose Norman. Currently, the procedures used by the various groups to create, submit, and edit résumés are acceptable, but not problem-free. The faculty who lead the IPT project have been interested in examining how well an available off-the-shelf or online résumé builder would meet the needs of students in the project and possibly improve the editing procedures. An ideal résumé builder would allow students to make different format and content choices to suit their individual needs. It would also be easy to use and maintain. And it would offer real improvement (not just change) to the editing procedures. Three résumé builders are evaluated here; as an alternative, this report also begins to explore the possibility of developing a custom résumé builder, built specifically for the IPT résumé projects. To obtain data for this report, I sent out email questionnaires to students in the IPT 2004 project to get their perspectives on the résumé project. I also conducted scholarly research, as well as personal interviews with the director of the UAH Career Center and with the engineering professor who oversees the IPT project. Based on this research, I designed criteria for evaluating how well résumé builders would suit the needs of the IPT students. I then searched the Internet using search engines and selected three résumé builders for evaluation. To study the feasibility of developing a custom résumé builder, I interviewed a local software engineer who designs and maintains databases and is familiar with several scripting languages for the web. The report is divided into essentially three sections. The first section describes and analyzes the current résumé creation, submission, and editing procedures to determine areas where improvement is needed. The second section establishes evaluation criteria and applies those criteria to three résumé builders (two online, one off-the-shelf). This section also includes a discussion of one possible method of building a custom résumé builder, one that is database-driven with an online interface for students to use to create résumés. The final section summarizes the evaluations, and offers recommendations for the IPT 2005 résumé project. Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 2 Current IPT Résumé Creation/Submission Process Before I begin the evaluation of résumé builder software, I will describe briefly the process IPT students currently use to create and submit résumés. In the next section, I will describe the current editing procedures. Students in the IPT project create résumés by using a template document created in Microsoft Word. The résumé template was created by Sinceree Gunn, as part of a technical communication report for Dr. Rose Norman. It should be noted that the template document is not what Word considers a template (i.e., a document with the file extension ―.dot‖), it is an actual Word document (―.doc‖) in which the students copy or type their own information into spaces containing example placeholders. In the past, students were given a .dot document, but were unsure what to do with it. To complete their résumés, the IPT students are given a URL (http://mortonweb.uah.edu/ipt2004/résumé_instructions.htm) where they can find instructions for downloading the template and creating their own résumés. This page contains a hyperlink to the template document; it also contains a list of tips to help students decide what to include in their résumés, and a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to address common issues. The template is provided as Attachment 2; the instructions, tips, and FAQs are provided as Attachment 1. After the students download and save the template document using the prescribed file naming procedure, they then insert their own information. For assistance, Dr. Norman has provided two models, one for use by UAH students and one for use by ESTACA students (see Attachment 2). The responses to an e-mail questionnaire sent to current IPT students indicate that there were no significant problems with the students’ ability to follow the instructions and use the models to create their résumés. Editing students, however, discovered several instances in which the IPT students did not use the template correctly. The students submit their résumés for editing by using an online database service called Quickbase (http://www.quickbase.com/). Each student creates a profile, if one does not already exist, and uploads the résumé. According to the e-mail questionnaire mentioned above, only one student reported a problem with Quickbase; she indicated that she didn’t feel certain of what her editor was working on, and wasn’t sure which version of her résumé had been edited. No other problems were reported by the IPT students concerning Quickbase. All students were required to create and submit a résumé by the assigned deadline in order to receive credit for the résumé. Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 3 Current IPT Résumé Editing Process Editing Process: Description After the résumés are uploaded to Quickbase, the technical editing course (CM/EH 302) takes on the job of editing and publishing them. (These editing students must also create and submit their own résumés.) The résumés are divided among the editors. Each editor is responsible for completing three editing cycles for every résumé: a hard copy edit, a redline, and a soft copy edit. Instructions and guidelines are given to the editing students in an Editors’ Handbook, developed by Susan Hackett and Dr. Norman with assistance from Jennifer Tibbs and Greg Sturgeon. This handbook is provided in Appendix C. The first editing cycle, the hard copy edit, is designed to catch obvious errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and style. To correct spelling, grammar, punctuation errors, the editors follow the Chicago Manual of Style. To identify and correct style errors, the editors are given a style sheet with information specific to the engineering disciplines and the IPT project. During the hard-copy edit cycle, the editors may also make or suggest changes to content (e.g., changing words to present a clearer picture of job duties). The editors use the hard copy markups as the basis for the second editing cycle, the redline edit. Using Microsoft Word’s ―Track Changes‖ feature, the editors make corrections to the Word files for their assigned résumés. These are then saved (adding ―R‖ to the filename to indicate a redlined copy, e.g., from DoeJF_rev_00.doc to DoeJF_rev_01R.doc) and uploaded to Quickbase for the authors to download and review. The third cycle, the soft copy edit, takes place after the authors have reviewed the redlined résumés. During this cycle, the editors apply the correct style template and make any changes needed according to the previous editing cycles and author remarks. The corrected résumés are saved, and the filenames are incremented by one (e.g., from DoeJF_rev_01R.doc to DoeJF_rev_01.doc). After the résumés have gone through the three editing cycles, they are handed off to different teams for preparation for booklet and web site publication. For booklet publication, the résumés are compiled into a single Word document and sent to a printer for publication. For the web site, the résumés are left as individual files, but are converted from Word format to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). Ideally, no more editing is needed once the résumés have been handed off for publication. Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 4 Editing Process: Analysis The editing process generally works well, but with a few snags. Primarily, editors encountered several instances in which the Word styles could not be properly applied, or in which changes would not be retained in a document. Dr. Norman and the team leaders also discovered that the styles would not work correctly if applied to a document that had had redlined changes accepted. These problems were either worked around or ignored until just prior to publication. Both the booklet team and the web site team had to make various corrections to résumés that had style problems introduced by Word. In addition to the problems with Word, some editors were confused about whether to upload the edited résumés to Quickbase, or FTP the résumés to the inbox in the IPT2004 directory on mortonweb. Editors were also confused by the file-naming procedures. Many students thought that the ―rev_01‖ cycle (the soft copy edit, cycle 3) came before the ―rev_01R‖ cycle (the redline edit, cycle 2). While these problems are not necessarily systemic, they were reported widely enough on an e-mail questionnaire that these editing procedures may warrant a second look (if only to create clearer instructions). Criteria for Selecting and Evaluating Résumé Builders Selection Criteria The résumé builders evaluated for this study were selected based on how well they met the following criteria:     Compatibility with Windows 2000 and XP (off-the-shelf products only) Availability of demo copy (off-the-shelf products only) Editable document file output (e.g., Word, HTML, etc.) Availability of technical support I chose these selection criteria before searching for résumé builders. To locate and select résumé builders, I searched on Yahoo! and Google search engines, using ―résumé builder‖ (quotation marks included, to search by the exact phrase) as my search term. I found three résumé builders to examine, and rejected two others. For example, NetTemps nearly met the criteria, but did not offer an output document (displaying résumés online instead). ResumeMaker Deluxe, by Individual Software, was planned for evaluation, but I did not receive the demo copy in time to be evaluated for this report. Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 5 Evaluation Criteria The criteria for evaluating résumé builder software are derived from two sources, scholarly research and interviews with Rick Shrout, a UAH career counselor, and Dr. Robert Frederick, a UAH engineering professor and head of the IPT project. The scholarly literature presents a general view of the decision-making process in hiring. The interviews provide insight into how engineering students are groomed to enter the job market in their fields. This information is necessary as the basis on which to judge résumé software; we must ensure that the résumé software is evaluated not just on its ability to improve the process, but also for its ability to generate the end product that the IPT instructors want for their students. The current résumé format, as indicated in the template and the models, employs a chronological structure. The chronological format was selected by Sinceree Gunn (2000), based on her research into what local companies looked for when examining résumés. This format, according to Houp et al. (2002), is helpful for college students because it allows them to highlight their academic progression in their fields. Rick Shrout, Director of Career Services at UAH, agreed that the chronological structure was beneficial for UAH engineering students, because most are unlikely to have much actual job experience relevant to their field. The chronological résumé format allows students to highlight other experience, such as coursework, particularly projects done for course credit. The chronological format is not looked on favorably by all, however. According to Duffus (2002), ―the traditional résumé is perceived as limiting of creative selfexpression, short on emphasizing accomplishments, disallowing effective differentiation to obtain competitive advantage in getting the interview, and as so stereotyped that it provides minimal cross-applicant differentiation.‖ Duffus also criticizes traditional résumés as being ―historical rather than future-oriented,‖ which may be a decided disadvantage for students will little ―history‖ in their field. Likewise, Crosby (1999) contends that ―[b]ecause the chronological format emphasizes dates and job titles, it is often a poor format for … new entrants to the work force.‖ She suggests that the functional résumé format is well-suited, because it emphasizes skills over positions held. Susan Ireland (2000) and Rebecca Burnett (2000) also suggest that the functional format is better for those without much relevant work experience, because the chronological format highlights gaps in work history such as a new job seeker might have. While it is beyond the scope of this report to recommend changes in the specific format of the IPT students’ résumés, I include this discussion from the literature because one of the important criteria for evaluating résumé builders is whether they offer a variety of available formats. This would be a necessary feature if the IPT faculty or editors Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 6 decided to implement a different format in the future, or to allow IPT students to choose a format to fit their background and taste. Regardless of the format that is used, because the IPT students are unlikely to have much real-world experience in their fields outside of the university, they are better served by emphasizing the work done in their major(s). In addition, in one British study, as many as two-thirds of the hiring managers surveyed reported that they asked about applicants’ educational history (Cook 1998). Crosby (1999) recommends that students include GPA, degree information, and relevant courses, all features that the current IPT résumé model employs. According to Cook (1998), several employers reported that they sifted through applications looking for certain key words, another feature used in the current IPT résumé model. Seeding a résumé with important key words is important because many employers now enter résumés into databases and search by key words (Houp et al. 2002). Rick Shrout also agreed that including important key words in the résumé is important, but did not agree that they should be listed separately; including them in the body of the résumé, as is currently required, is sufficient, he said, since most employers are likely to scan the printed résumés into a database to create a larger search pool (IPT résumés as well as all other résumés received by that company). Including the separate key words section, therefore, simply duplicates words that will be located in the database anyway, and potentially takes up space that students could use for other things. To facilitate employers’ scanning of the résumés, Shrout also recommended that no font larger than 20-point nor smaller than 10-point be used for the printed résumés. Font size is irrelevant for scanning electronic résumés, such as HTML. One additional recommendation Shrout offered was to encourage IPT participants to list as much material as possible relevant to their intended profession. Including job experience that is unrelated to the engineering fields does not help the students, and could divert their attention from other relevant experience they may have that does not fit the ―work experience‖ category. Shrout also maintained that flexibility was an important factor. While having a template for students to follow is helpful, he suggests that we should also allow students some freedom to modify the structure in order to present each student’s experience and skills in the best possible light. The preceding discussion articulates the current views about what should go in a résumé and what it should look like. Because the résumé builders being evaluated are software products, we must also add technical criteria to the list. For example, because the IPT students have relatively little time to devote to the résumés, the résumé builders should be easy to use and not require a great deal of learning time. Second, the résumé builder interface should allow students the option of backing up, or completing sections out of sequence, since not all sections will apply equally to all students. The résumé Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 7 builders should allow students to select or modify section titles if necessary. (Ideally, the résumé builders would allow the users to choose from several possible sections, to create maximum customization while maintaining consistent format and style.) And finally, the online résumé builders should have clearly stated privacy policies—what do they do with the information that students would enter Would they sell information to third parties, or use information for marketing purposes? Each résumé builder will be evaluated based on whether or how well it:       Allows multiple formats (although users may be limited to one or two by the IPT faculty) Allows users flexibility within preset categories Allows users to quickly learn the interface Allows users to add large amount of information, if necessary (e.g., several relevant courses) Maintains information in a secure manner Improves the editing procedures In addition to these criteria, I will evaluate how well the résumé builders may improve the editing process. I will also mention cost, although at this point it is uncertain the extent to which cost will affect the choice of résumé builder for IPT 2005. Evaluation of Résumé Builders AutoResume.com (http://www.autoresume.com/) As the name suggests, AutoResume.com offers an online résumé builder. The main advantage to this site is that the résumé builder is easy to use; users are walked through the steps very quickly. The site also provides tips for how to complete several sections of the résumé. The user-friendly interface works well. In addition, the fact that this service is online means that students could create a résumé using any computer platform or browser. It also means that the ESTACA students would have easy access to the résumé builder. Figure 1 on the next page shows a sample screen of the AutoResume.com interface (the ―Education‖ input form). The drawbacks, however, outweigh the benefits. While the interface is easy to understand and use, the choices for each résumé section are limited. For example, the current IPT model contains a section called ―Key Words,‖ so that students may highlight important terms that match their skills. The AutoResume.com model does not have a section for Key Words, beginning instead with a statement of objective(s). (A section describing the job seekers objectives is better suited to those job seekers who are Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 8 targeting a specific company or who are switching careers. See Gunn [2000], Crosby [1999].) The final product is a Microsoft Word document, so presumably the students could list their key words under the ―Objectives‖ section and change the section title in the Word document (see Figure 2, below). But this would not appear to add any additional value above the current procedure. Figure 1: “Education” Input Form, AutoResume.com (screen capture obtained by the author from http://www.autoresume.com/) A second disadvantage is that the space allowed in each section is limited. I tried to enter the information from the UAH model résumé into the corresponding spaces in the AutoResume.com builder, but the résumé builder would not allow some of the longer items to fit. For example, the ―Education‖ input section (shown in Figure 1) only allowed Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 9 me to specify the dates of attendance, school name and location, and major. It included an open text box in which I tried to enter the remaining information from the model (―Relevant Coursework,‖ ―Work Sample,‖ ―Honors and Affiliations‖), but not all of the information from the model would fit within the limit of 200 characters. Again, students could conceivably add information after generating the Word document, but this really defeats the purpose of using a résumé builder. Figure 2: Key Words Entered in “Objective” Input Form, AutoResume.com (screen capture obtained by the author from http://www.autoresume.com/) Because the output is in Word format, AutoResume.com has no discernible effect on the editing phase. It is possible that editors could receive passwords from authors whose résumés they edit, and edit information within the AutoResume.com interface. Doing this would ensure that the editors did not accidentally introduce style or format errors into the Word document. The risk of such errors, however, does not justify the extra work needed for editors to edit inside the AutoResume.com interface. AutoResume.com advertises that its service costs $19 (payments accepted only by credit card). I inquired about the possibility of an educational or group rate, and was told that AutoResume.com offers a group rate, but not for as few as 75 students. (I used 75 as a guide based on an approximation of the number of résumés included in the 2004 IPT résumé booklet.) Finally, AutoResume.com mentions no security or privacy policy. Queries about this went unanswered. Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 10 ResumeEasy.com (http://www.resumeeasy.com/) ResumeEasy.com is another online résumé builder, offering many of the same features as AutoResume.com. For example, users are walked through the steps very quickly and clearly. Also, ResumeEasy.com provides tips for how to complete sections of the résumé, including preset ―power words‖ and phrases, shown in Figure 3, below. Finally, as with AutoResume.com, using an online résumé builder means that students could create a résumé using any computer platform or browser. Figure 3: Sample Input Screen for ResumeEasy.com (image downloaded from http://www.resumeeasy.com/) ResumeEasy.com appears to exceed the service offered by AutoResume.com in many respects. ResumeEasy.com offers more format and layout options than AutoResume.com. This would give students more flexibility to create a résumé better suited to their information, and would allow for the format to be changed in subsequent IPT projects. ResumeEasy.com also allows more text to be entered into the input forms than AutoResume.com allows. In addition, ResumeEasy.com includes an online copy of the résumé as part of the service (advertising the URL as http://YOURNAME.checkmyresume.com/). A preexisting online résumé would facilitate the development of the résumé web site, as no résumés would need to be converted to PDF. Like AutoResume.com, ResumeEasy.com creates résumés in Microsoft Word format. ResumeEasy.com thus has little impact on the résumé editing process, except to perhaps speed up development of the web site because of the online résumé feature. ResumeEasy.com lists the price of its service as $19.95 (payments accepted only by credit card). My inquiry about educational or group discounts received no response. Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 11 And, as with AutoResume.com, ResumeEasy.com mentions no security or privacy policy. Queries about this went unanswered as well. Resume Builder 3.15, Sarm Software (http://www.sarmsoft.com/products/resumebuilder) Resume Builder 3.15 is an off-the-shelf résumé builder developed by Sarm Software. It is compatible with Windows NT, 2000, and XP. It is also compatible with earlier versions of Windows, but users must download and install a separate file in order for Resume Builder 3.15 to run on those systems. Resume Builder 3.15 interface is simple to use, and visually resembles a simplified version of Microsoft FrontPage (in appearance only—users cannot edit the résumé content in the large window). Figure 4 on the next page shows a screen capture of the Resume Builder 3.15 editor. The résumé sections are clearly labeled, although entering information in each section requires the user to navigate multiple pop-up dialog boxes. Users can select from 25 different document formats, although some formats employ unattractive background colors and font styles, and clearly seem to have been designed for online rather than printed publication. In addition, users can export their résumés to Microsoft Word, HTML, or to XML. Exporting to XML is designed to facilitate employers’ scanning résumés into databases, which is a growing consideration to job seekers nowadays. Because the information is editable in the application, editors could edit the résumés in Resume Builder 3.15 instead of in Word, then export the edited document for publication. This would allow editors to employ a simple kind of single-sourcing, using one source file to generate a résumé in Word and in HTML (and even XML). While Resume Builder 3.15 offers many advantages, there are other considerations that limit its attractiveness. Like its online peers, Resume Builder 3.15 contained preset section titles, and ―Key Words‖ is not one of them. Authors or editors would still have to manually change this in the output file, or else this section would have to be renamed to something like ―Summary.‖ (Besides job experience, education, and skills, the only headings Resume Builder 3.15 allows are ―Summary,‖ ―Personal,‖ ―Publications,‖ and ―Objective.‖) Because it is a desktop application, editors would still need to use some method like Quickbase to get résumés to and from authors. With the online résumé builders, the résumé data is stored online (although students would possibly still need to send Word documents to editors.) Also, it might require that the university purchase multiple site licenses; the normal cost is $24.95 per license, but educational users would get a discount of 20% off of that price per license. This would only be a one-time cost, unless upgrade was required, but even so, purchasing enough licenses to serve all the students involved in the project could approach $2,000. This cost is comparable to the cost of both AutoResume.com and ResumeEasy.com. Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 12 Figure 4: Screen Capture of Resume Builder 3.15 Editor (obtained by the author) And finally, Resume Builder 3.15 would make it extremely difficult to serve the ESTACA students. They would either have to purchase the software, or else devise some other method of creating résumés that resembles those of the UAH students. While the product allows users to create résumés in different languages, the software itself does not come in different languages. If the ESTACA students use a French edition of Windows, unforeseen compatibility issues may arise. Privacy of information is not a factor, since the information students enter would only be stored in a local file. Feasibility of Developing a Custom Résumé Builder (This section of my report is based on an interview with Jennifer Bailey, a software engineer with Boeing who has four years’ professional experience with databases and XML. She also has some educational experience with CGI and Perl scripting for the web.) Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 13 Developing a custom résumé builder is a much more complex procedure than using any of the available off-the-shelf or online products. It would require a significant commitment of time and money in order to obtain the necessary expertise and software. However, once the custom résumé builder was completed, the complexity would be reduced, unless the IPT instructors wanted to make changes to the résumé format or content. Much of the development time would be devoted to designing the database, scripting its online interface, and scripting the export mechanism for generating document types (such as Word, HTML, PDF, XML, etc.). The development phase would also require testing, both of its technical features (i.e., does it do what it’s supposed to do?) and its usability (i.e., can an author and editor figure out how to use it correctly?). The custom résumé builder would consist of a database with an online interface for authors. Editors would interact directly with the database itself. The online interface could be scripted in any of several scripting languages, such as ASP, Perl, CGI, or C#, and could consist of either a single page with drop-down menus for section headings (e.g., ―Key Words,‖ ―Education,‖ etc.), and text boxes to input the data; or it could consist of separate pages for each résumé section, again with text boxes for authors to enter data into. The latter design would more closely approximate the designs of the offthe-shelf and online résumé builders. In either case, the learning curve for authors would be no greater than the learning curve required for any of the résumé builders evaluated above. In fact, the learning curve could even be lessened by having instructions specifically written with the IPT students in mind. Additionally, the authors and editors alike could benefit because document format and design issues would be taken out of the authors’ hands. Authors could concern themselves only with the content at first, and design considerations could be addressed later in the process. After authors enter their information into the online interface, the data would be sent to the database for storage. Bailey noted that any common database could be used, such as Microsoft Access, SQL server, or Oracle. Others could probably work as well, she said, but these were the only ones she knew of that provided XML support and could more easily export data to different document formats. Editors could edit the résumés’ content in the database itself. After the content had been edited, the data would be exported to create individual résumé documents in several different file formats. The key advantage to developing a custom résumé builder would be that, by definition, it would be exactly what the IPT students and faculty want it to be. With the other available résumé builders, some compromise must be made regarding document content and format; those products are designed to appeal to a larger general audience. The custom IPT résumé builder could be tailored to include exactly what the IPT participants need, and could be modified as needed to accommodate changes in IPT requirements. Other advantages include: eliminating the current file management system, Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 14 which some editors found confusing; eliminating template and style errors in Word, because the editing process could take place in the database itself; and creating a true ―single-source‖ process for creating résumés, with multiple document types generated from the same source data. Regarding single-sourcing, Bailey recommended building the database to export to XML as a ―base‖ document format; using XML as a base, she said, you could create Word documents for printed versions, HTML for online, and PDF for CD-ROM—XML would also make it easier for employers to scan résumés into their own databases. Finally, the web site containing the résumés would be reconceived as a dynamic, ―on-demand‖ site, in which employers could perform custom searches using multiple criteria (e.g., search by key word and by major). The greatest disadvantage to developing a résumé builder for the IPT project is simply the commitment of resources. The IPT faculty would first have to plan what they wanted, then find someone with the expertise to do it, and to fill in gaps as needed. (This project could possibly be assigned as an internship to someone in computer science or management information systems.) Someone would have to obtain the software necessary as well. The database application and the server on which to run it would be perhaps the only expenses in this regard, since local computers already have Microsoft Word and FrontPage, and Macromedia Dreamweaver. In addition to commitment of resources for development, maintenance would also be in the hands of the IPT participants. There would be no external ―tech support‖ for a custom product. Security, likewise, would be a necessary concern of whoever maintained the database. Because of the complexity of design, it would be difficult to make changes to the database once IPT project was underway. For example, it require major reworking of the database to add a different section to the résumés, or to change the type of document formats to export to. The database would have to go offline for the length of the modification. Additionally, the editors would almost certainly need training to use the database application, perhaps more than one session, and this training would have to take place early in the editing project. And finally, the educational goals of the editing project might be greatly affected; hard copy edits would not take place until after content had been edited in database and the data exported to a (most likely) Word document. Conclusions It is clear that no available off-the-shelf or online résumé builder will entirely suit the needs of the 2005 IPT résumé project. None of the products examined proved any better than the current method for ease of use or customization, and some would not allow as much information as the current model résumé contains. They do, however, Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 15 offer several document templates to choose from, which would allow students to have some greater control over their résumés’ appearance without having to manipulate large sections of information in Word files (e.g., students with more job experience could more easily place that section before the ―education‖ section). However, they don’t allow users to customize sections within the résumé builder interfaces (i.e., adding a section of specific interest to IPT students, like ―Project Experience‖). Information can be customized, but really only after the output file has been generated. Also, the text input areas may not allow as much information as some may wish to enter. Students with lengthy relevant courses, or with several job duties may have to rethink what they enter. Such limitations run counter to the idea of letting students create a résumé to suit themselves; these limitations actually force students to sacrifice the résumé content to what the résumé builder will allow. Furthermore, because they all involve entering information into text forms and then generating a document, no product examined has much effect the current editing process. At best, the résumé builders are passable because they create a Microsoft Word document—if the IPT students create résumés using a résumé builder, then the editors could edit the résumés using the current procedures. Editing within the online résumé builders’ interfaces would be possible, but would require a greater degree of coordination between author and editor regarding passwords and login names. File management processes, web site development, and booklet preparation would remain unaffected by AutoResume.com; ResumeEasy.com would at least offer an advantage to résumé web site development. Resume Builder 3.15 would add the benefit of generating résumés in XML format in addition to Word and HTML formats. Finally, while AutoResume.com and ResumeEasy.com would improve the ability of editors to access the ESTACA students’ résumés, questionable privacy policies limit these services’ usefulness. Vice versa, Resume Builder 3.15 has no such privacy concerns, but would hinder the ESTACA students’ résumé creation process. Cost of all three résumé builders is comparable, but all three require the use of a credit card for payment. A custom résumé builder is more attractive because it is, by definition, whatever the IPT project faculty want it to be. It would be developed with the specific needs of the IPT students in mind. It would be a ―local‖ site, eliminating questions about security (but putting this responsibility squarely on the IPT project managers). Implementing true single-sourcing would not only be more efficient in production, but would also give the editing students a taste of current practices in technical communication today. Singlesourcing would also allow changes output formats to be made later in the process (if, for example, you decided that wanted to create XML documents in addition to HTML). Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 16 The greatest limitations of a custom résumé builder would be logistical: cost, development time, and maintenance. The learning curve for authors would be minimal, since they would only need to interact directly with the online interface; but the learning curve for editors would be very steep. Recommendations After considering the available résumé builders, and considering building one tailored for the IPT project, I cannot recommend any résumé builder for the IPT 2005 project at this time. In the long term, the custom résumé builder is the best option, but the required commitment of resources and the required level of technical knowledge appears too great for this to be completed in time for IPT 2005. The next step would be to conduct further interviews with database or e-commerce designers (preferably someone on-campus, who might eventually be tapped to create the résumé builder) and to conduct cost analyses to see how much money would be required to pay a developer and purchase software. None of the available résumé builders is recommended because none appears to offer a decided advantage over the current résumé creation and editing processes. The only real impact that any of the résumé builders has is on the résumé creation process. These products would not naturally affect file management, editing, or publication, with the exception of the HTML and XML export features. (I say ―naturally‖ because the editing process could be pushed into the résumé builder, but this is by no means necessary or perhaps desirable.) In addition, several small disadvantages, when taken together, add up to a comparatively large disadvantage. These include: the lack of clearly-stated privacy policies; the lack of customization within the résumé builder interface to suit the IPT students’ needs; and the requirement to pay by credit card (meaning that either each student must use his or her own card, or else someone would have to provide an account number to dozens of students). The final recommendation is to continue using the current methods for creating and editing résumés, but to look further at developing a custom résumé builder. Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 17 References Bailey, Jennifer. 2004. Personal Interview. April 1, 2004. Burnett, Rebecca. 2000. Technical communication. 5th ed. Boston: Heinle Publishers. http://english.heinle.com/burnett/resources/career/résumé/ (accessed February 6, 2004). Crosby, Olivia. 1999. ―Résumés, applications, and cover letters.‖ Occupational Outlook Quarterly (Summer): 2–14. Duffus, Lee R. 2002. ―Comparative assessment of the résumé and the personal strategic plan: Perspective of undergraduate business students, human resource professionals, and business executives.‖ Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge (September): 123–128. Gunn, Sinceree. 2000. ―Résumé form and content for entry-level mechanical engineering majors.‖ Unpublished report. Houp, Kenneth W., Thomas E. Pearsall, Elizabeth Tebeaux, and Sam Dragga. 2002. Reporting technical information. 10th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Ireland, Susan. 2000. The résumé guide. http://susanireland.com/ (accessed February 6, 2004). Jerz, D.G. 2000. Résumés (and cover letters). http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/technical/resume/index.html (accessed February 6, 2004). McKinney, Arlise P., Kevin D. Carlson, Ross L. Mecham III, Nicholas C. D'Angelo, and Mary L. Connerley. 2003. ―Recruiters’ use of GPA in initial screening decisions: higher GPAS don't always make the cut.‖ Personnel Psychology 56 (4) 823–845. Shrout, Rick. 2004. Personal Interview. April 7, 2004. Wilk, Steffanie L., and Peter Cappelli. 2003. ―Understanding the determinants of employer use of selection methods.‖ Personnel Psychology 56 (1): 103–124. Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 18 Recommended Reading: Résumé Formats and Uses Amundson, Norman. 1997. ―Myths, metaphors, and moxie: The 3Ms of career counseling.‖ Journal of Employment Counseling 34 (2): 76–84. Aune, Betty. 2000. ―Career and Academic Advising.‖ New Directions for Student Services 91: 55–67. AutoResume.com. 2004. http://www.autoresume.com/ (accessed February 4, 2004). Flippo, Edwin B. 1980. Personnel management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Friedman, Brian, James Hatch, and David M. Walker. 1998. Delivering on the promise: How to attract, manage, and retain human capital. New York: Free Press. Kraut, Allen I., and Abraham K. Korman, eds. 1999. Evolving practices in human resource management: Responses to a changing world of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. McMurrey, David A. 2001. ―Business correspondence and résumés.‖ Power tools for technical communication. Boston: Wadsworth Publishers http://www.io.com/~hcexres/tcm1603/acchtml/lettov.html (accessed February 6, 2004). ResumeEasy. 2004. http://www.resumeeasy.com/ (accessed February 4, 2004). Robinson, Nancy M. 1997. The role of universities and colleges in educating gifted undergraduates. Peabody Journal of Education 72 (3-4): 217-36. Rudd, David, and Kelly C. Strong. 1997. ―A new model of job training for economic rebirth.‖ Journal of Employment Counseling 34 (3): 123–132. Sarm Software. 2004. Resume Builder 3.15 http://www.sarmsoft.com/product/resumebuilder/ (accessed April 18, 2004). Stewart, Gregory, Ruth B. Russell, and Dianne B. Wright 1997. The comprehensive role of student affairs in African-American student retention. Journal of College Admission 154: 6-11. Topper, Elisa F. 2003. ―Working knowledge.‖ American Libraries 34 (7): 94. Ulrich, Dave, ed. 1998. Delivering results: A new mandate for human resource professionals. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. West Virginia University Career Services Center. ―Job Hunting Tips and Resources.‖ http://www.ece.wvu.edu/jobs/ (accessed February 6, 2004). Appendix Graphic Comparison of Résumé Builders Evaluated for This Project Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman A-1 Table A-1 below contains a visual comparison of how each résumé builder met the criteria established for this project. The résumé builders are evaluated on an ascending scale of 1 to 10 for each criterion. (A score of 1 in a category means that the résumé builder meets the criterion very poorly; a score of 10 means that the résumé builder meets the criterion very well.) Table A-1: Graphic Comparison of Résumé Builders Evaluation Criteria Résumé Builder Allows multiple formats 6 Allows flexibility Easy to learn Allows large amount of data 1 Security/ privacy Improves editing process 1 Cost AutoResume 6 10 1 4 ResumeEasy Resume Builder 3.15 Custom résumé builder 6 6 10 5 1 1 4 7 7 8 5 10 1 4 10 10 3 10 8 8 1 Final tallies:     AutoResume.com: ResumeEasy.com: Resume Builder 3.15: Custom Résumé Builder: 29/70 (41%) 33/70 (47%) 42/70 (60%) 50/70 (71%) Attachment 1: From http://mortonweb.uah.edu/ipt2004/resume_info.htm: “IPT 2004 Résumé Instructions” “Instructions for Submitting Your Résumé Through Quickbase” ”Tips for Résumé Creation” ”Résumé Frequently Asked Questions” Attachment 2: Résumé Template and Models Attachment 3: Key Source “Comparative assessment of the résumé and the personal strategic plan: Perspective of undergraduate business students, human resource professionals, and business executives.” from Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge (September 2002) by Lee R. Duffus