Stop monolith-write CV's. Use a framework to structure the work

As a consultant, the task to write applications is a common part of the life. Even though so, every time is like starting from blanks or compromise time with quality. For a analytical perfectionist as me, it can also be quite a daunting one, where time and quality stands as a dangerous trade off while it need to be done.

I say dangerous because those angles should ultimately not be contrary, in this case. Why? One can loose a good opportunity, or oppositely, the requester can loose a perfect match, just because insufficient time or routine to write resumes, make up wrong things. Depending on the role and resource, it can be a enormous advantage that the right dots is connected.

How to increase chances that the right details appear?

The Framework

Each preparation to send an application invoke a degree of re-inventing the wheel. So this time, I think of it at a perspective. Given that I re-invent the wheel so many times, I also must have done a number of activities and tasks in similar way. Each time, apparently. Why would the process of writing resumes or CV's be so monolithic? I did construct a basic structure of all activities that make sense and observed it from aside. Next step, I generalize and arranged a structure with those. I come up with this;

This infant framework is a product of a spontaneous kick, and need to be seen (and valuated) that way. But it certainly help me keep focus on the actual value of the text I write, because I know I can go back to the framework for the remaining areas to cover.

Kick off

Read the table from a perspective of "I will now write a new application on a job position I selected" and use it to write points, thoughts and memory notes. As a work document, one to each application.

Make a new instance of the document for the new role/position. Start top-left by opt-in or opt-out experiences that match or provide relevance to the position. Carefully decide the key groupings (assignments, courses, education, "most relevant") followed by typing their titles. The following cells does incrementally assemble and refines the resume, the written content engage with the requested role. I.e. if the role is asked to be high-level oriented, the perspective-part make it easier to ask if the details really address high-level concerns. If not, re-write it or consider to opt-out if it does not match.

At the final steps, not earlier, get keywords and objectives out from the adjusted text, that make sense to the requested in the role position. Why? Because otherwise we face the wall of never-ending small adjustments and increase the risk that i.e. keywords is used that does not address the details. In the framework, each cell could be used to fill in the rough idea that ultimately should not change that much. The whole table would than act as a highlight.

Application archetypes

Shortly thereafter I did also realize that people loves categorization. The framework, as it's described above, does not support that due to it nature. So, to meet that need, I find that I might just place a quadrant over the table. Suddenly it's even able to be used to measure maturity and use for valuation over time. Just by wrap it up to something like this;

• Top-left is lowest value, spending time on applications making minor change. Not able to reach the edge perfectness or high high level perspective.
• Bottom-left generate most applications in the quadrant, but quality suffer. Not able to meet the perspectives and common points.
• Top-right spend time on extensive matching, so they loose the high level view. Not able to reach the edge perfectness and review.
• Bottom-right is the safest group, comfortable to review themselves to the position. Eventually loose the ask n hook part due to lack knowledge to the new role/position.

That's all folks, enjoy! I guess version two will lift a paper product to be a automatic text processing based. Just let me know when you are free, and we develop it :-)