Budget Macho

No sooner had I posted about the obsession that some recruiters have with budget size, then the phone rang again with a similar question. And over at Projectified (which comes with a great strapline), Brian Kennemer commented on the post, pointing out:

But I have to say that I think this theory breaks down to some degree. I think that big, high stakes projects carry with them different kinds of pressure than small ones. Also in many cases large budget often equates to large scope.

I think that last point is actually the key to my argument - a budget is actually just one proxy measure to the business scale of the project. The larger the budget, the larger the scope and the larger the impact. But absolute measures of budget are meaningless unless you’ve got the context in which to put the figures - going back to the example I cited, the budget amounted to 10% of their annual turnover, and their entire reserves. Screwing that up by going 10% over-budget would have resulted in holing them below the waterline. If I’d screwed up the biggest project I’ve managed to date - well, missing the numbers by 10% would have resulted in some penalty clauses being invoked and some harsh words exchanged, but ultimately the organisation would have survived.

Which was the “best” project? From a personal perspective, the smaller one - there was no place to hide, so the satisfaction of bringing it in on time, on budget was all the greater. Which was the most glamorous? The biggest one, naturally.

What recruiters should be asking is “which project did you learn the most from, and what did you learn?” But that’s not a question you’ll be asked often until you’re talking to a recruiting manager rather than an intermediary.