Olympics Sweepstake

Hi Guys,



In his post #20 Oliver Jones raises a number of concerns about the possibility of rating or scoring recruiters as suggested by Andrew. Quite rightly he raises the possibility of recruiters being slandered, however, I don’t really think his argument holds water. A statement is usually only slanderous if it is untrue and is represented as fact; an opinion no matter how uncomplimentary even if it is untrue need not be slanderous provided it is clearly an opinion.



In a feedback exercies such as rating the performance of a recruiter, this is quite obviously an opinion, so even if it was uncomplimentary and untrue is unlikely to be slanderous. However, since Oliver Jones has nearly five years experience of Planning Planet, he knows that the vast majority of people who participate are honest. So if an uncomplimentary rating was given for a recruiter, it would, more than likely, be correct.



I think Oliver Jones is mistaken when he says that some people loath the idea of speaking to recruiters, what I believe people loath is recruiters cold calling them when they are not looking for work. In circumstances like this, perhaps Planning Planet should introduce the idea they are considering a "report this author" button which will give the author 3 strikes and their facility stops for 2 weeks. With recruiting companies, for example, this could be extended to all PP members working for them, since they are not acting as individuals but as agents for the company.



All this is rather "by the way" as probably the real question is do recruiters have a part to play in Planning Planet?



Personally, I think they do, but they should ensure that the part they play is within the guidelines for Planning Planet and three simple things should be in place before they contact anyone:



1. Check to see if the person wants a job before calling them to offer them one. Failing to do this is ill-mannered and unprofessional.



2. Check to see if their specialisation or specialisations suit the sector you are recruiting for, again failing to do this shows a lack of courtesy and professionalism.



3. If you have contacted someone don’t ask them to pass on your company details to someone else if they are not interested. They are not here to do your job for you; if they are not interested, ask them if they know of anyone who might be interested and whether they would be prepared to give you the contact details for that person.



If recruiters were a little more circumspect in the way they go about their business, they would probably find that they’d get a great deal less resentment, and maybe even a few favourable opinions.



Chris Oggham

Oliver,



I personally have no problem with RC’s. I just enjoy a good debate and am purely speculating on why some people cant be arsed with RC’s.



Regards



Oliver

Oliver J



“ when a Recruiter posts questions relating to the market to try and learn what a PPer actually does they are shot down with flames and ridiculed?”



Where you refereeing to my contributions by any chance Oliver – if so I think you are being outrageously disingenuous (the cap fits so I am wearing it). The sort of questions Chris Austin was asking could have been easily answered by reading a basic book on planning or, if his commission doesn’t run to that yet, by Googling a few answers.



PP does not only survive thanks to the financial support of the RCs but also from the goodwill of those who post here. Asking, frankly, dumb questions is not the way to go about things, further more, not responding to any criticisms personally or sharing anything smacks to me as outright cowardice. You will notice that, no matter how self-important I think I am, if I make a mistake I readily admit to it. Pity Chris can’t do the same.



Perhaps you could mask Chris (or instruct him) to answer some of the questions posed to him – or do you condone the means by which he has been trying to analyse the market or find out what we do. In my humble opinion, one who says he specialises in the recruitment of, say, Forensic and Delay Analysts should know the business first before touting himself as such.



David

Oliver,



A guy called Chris Austin was the epicentre of this ruckass.



If you check in the threads that Chris Austin asked about CPI and SPI, you will notice that he wasn’t shot down in flames. People only had a dig at his questions about ’where is the best claims consultancy’ etc.



This is probably due to the fact that his motive may be driven by money and not need or interest in planning info.



Nobody hates recruiters (not too much anyway!)but people think there is a time and a place for them.



Some people want to create a purely technical planning forum for the purpose of helping each other and others want to see a fully versatile planning resource for jobs, help and contacts etc.



Question that arise are;



If their is a vacancy page, do recruiters need to tout in threads?



If someone needs a little help, do they want an IRL for a consultants website?



Also, I don’t think any planners would be jealous of recruitment consultants, as you should know we can afford fancy cars and holidays too!



I personnally don’t think an RC should know anything about my job, as if I apply for a planning post surely the client will determine my suitability?

Maybe a league table on PPlanet such as the most active table?



Consultant names as oppose to companies, along with contact details would mean that the individual who has performed well will receive the benefit, i.e commission!

Andrew,



That idea of scoring recruiters based on the feedback of PP members who have had dealings with them is a really good one. At first sight recruiters could see this as just a means for people to give them a metaphorical kicking. However, if it was used correctly, the recruiters themselves would get valuable feedback on how to improve their services.



Of course, if a recruiter received too many bad reviews without attempting to improve, then they would start to lose business. This would, in itself, be an incentive to improve committment and performance which would be of real value to prospective employers and to those seeking employment.



I think you could be on to something with that idea, so it might be worthwhile suggesting it to PP Admin.



Chris Oggham

I suggest we all just ignore Mr Austin’s ridiculous posts - they obviously don’t attempt to add to the sum of planning knowledge, as David says they are from a recruitment consultant not a planner.

I only deal with the recruiters that can answer the questions in David’s post accurately.



I wont even entertain an interview unless I am 100% sure the prospective employer understands my expectations and I his.



That said there are not many recruitment agencies that can deliver same.



Perhaps Planning Planet could start a scoring system for recruitment agencies based on member feedback?

David,



I wonder if there is any connection between recruiters and politicians? I mean to say, neither of them seems to be able to give a straight answer to a straight question.



Chris Oggham

It would be great going for an interview with him..



How much is the salary Chris?

Sorry, can’t answer that, I only do questions.



Who is the company Chris?

Sorry, that’s a secret.



Where is the project based Chris?

Sorry, not sure about that, thought you would be able to tell me.



Is there a car allowance Chris?

How the heck should I know!



Etc, etc.

David,



I think I see a pattern here, Chris Austen doesn’t answer questions, he only asks them.



Chris Oggham

What do you think Chris?



As a specialist recruiter in the claims/forensic discipline I am sure you have discussed this with all your candidates - maybe some of those better informed than us who would be looking for work on the Olympics or even working on the project already?



Do you think this will be a big source of appointments for us? How do you think the Disputes Board will affect the way that specailist are employed on the project, if at all?



David

Chris,



COST PERFORMANCE INDEX

CPI (BCWP/ACWP)(Budgeted Cost of Work Performed/ Actual CWP)



CPI 1 is good. CPI >1 Underspend. CPI<1 Overspend.



SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE INDEX

SPI (BCWP/BCWS)(Budgeted Cost of Work Performed/ BCW Scheduled)



SPI 1 is good. SPI >1 Ahead of plan. SPI <1 Behind plan.



If you say what you need to know all this for then maybe i can tell you a better way to learn than PPlanet.



Regards,



Oliver

Try looking in the PMBoK.



They are used as indicators that show a high level (or sometimes low-level) performance figure of whether a programme is on-time/overunning overspent/under budget etc.

That being a combined figure.

Chris / Clive,



I may work on th olympic village so I predict a CPI/SPI of 1.



Regards