Program PLC 5 To Fault

[rdrast]

If it doesn't have to be delayed, but is hard to troubleshoot, configure a communications module's slot to be an interrupt slot. Ask them why the scantime is on the order of 10 to 20 seconds.

 

[duckman]

Of Course, none of these possible applicants, that are interested in PLC's are watching this thread? Now at least they know what to brush up on. ha,ha

 

[JohnCalderwood]

I am currently supporting a plant that has 27 PLC5s...Geezajob?

Do they pay relocation expenses?

 

[Ron Beaufort]

the same company had me write another "upper-level" test for them – to see if an applicant could set up – and just roughly tune - a bare-bones PID loop – using a little simulator as the "process" to be controlled ...

they just had one slot to fill for this level of technician – and a couple of months later I asked them how the hunt had turned out ...

"we've only had one guy so far who could actually do it ... he flew in for the interview from Texas and nailed the test in less than fifteen minutes" ...

I asked if they'd hired him ...

"no – we couldn't afford him" was the answer ...

here's something to think about ...

personally I have ZERO problem with giving people tests ... but in a larger sense – most tests can only show what the applicants CURRENTLY (already) know ... most tests have little or no validity in predicting how much the applicant is capable of LEARNING and/or FIGURING OUT new material in the future ...

in other words, it's quite possible that the best type of test that you could develop would unfortunately "weed out" PRECISELY the "can-do" (thinks on his feet) sort of guy that you really do want to hire – in favor of someone who might have enough EXPERIENCE to pass the test – but wouldn't be able to "troubleshoot" or to "problem-solve" his (or her) way out of a wet paper bag ...

the best solution to that particular problem that I've ever heard of was a "try 'em out" sort of arrangement ... basically the employer would "contract" a promising applicant through a temporary employment agency ... that way both parties got to try each other out for a while – with no promise (implied or expressed) of any permanent employment in the future ...

DISCLAIMER: that was quite a few years ago – and it's quite possible that the same game plan would now be considered illegal by our beloved government – who has gotten entirely too deep into every aspect of running a business ... and suddenly I'm getting dangerously close to mounting my political soapbox – so off to work I go ...

 

[Paullys50]

I always cringe a little when people start to discuss interview "tests" like this. I've always wondered what it actually proves, if anything at all. The scope of automation is so vast, and candidate pool tiny already that you could ask a specific question to a great candidate and they simply aren't familiar enough with the concepts that they could fail the test(s) and of course now there is a big negative in the eyes of the interviewer. As Ron said, you have no idea what the learning capacity is of the candidate.

Ron's example is great, the one guy that can pass the test they aren't interested in because he was too expensive. Well, if you wanna play the game, play the game. If your budget dictates that you find a "technician" and pay them $50K a year, well align your expectations. If are looking for an "Engineer" and will pay them $100K, again align your expectations. But don't expect that you'll find an "Engineer" who will take a "Technician" role and technician pay. "We are looking for a guy that knows everything except what they are worth!". Candidates are NOT like capital projects, don't treat them as such.

Pressure during an interview is different than pressure in a manufacturing facility. Dropping a "test" like this during an interview especially w/o notice to the candidate prior is really poor practice in my opinion. I can understand this if you have presented the interview process to the candidate and they have some means to prep for the test topic(s). But then again, maybe it was 5 years ago they messed with PLC5s and block transfers and now don't even have the means to prep for it so they can read manuals and try to freshen up the memory but it doesn't build much confidence.

In my opinion leverage their references and take them through the facility and probe them for feedback on the architecture and what they see. This is a better way to separate the "men from the boys", but it only works if the interviewer is one of those "men" and not a "boy" himself.

 

[Aabeck]

I went on one job interview where the manager wanted to test me by having me troubleshoot a down machine. I got suspicious & after finding the problem told him I would fix it when hired, or he could issue me a PO as a contractor to fix it - turns out whenever a machine of his breaks down that his maintenance people can't fix & he doesn't need to call in a service person quickly he posts a help wanted ad to get the applicant to fix it for free for him.

 

[The Plc Kid]

I always cringe a little when people start to discuss interview "tests" like this. I've always wondered what it actually proves, if anything at all. The scope of automation is so vast, and candidate pool tiny already that you could ask a specific question to a great candidate and they simply aren't familiar enough with the concepts that they could fail the test(s) and of course now there is a big negative in the eyes of the interviewer. As Ron said, you have no idea what the learning capacity is of the candidate.

Ron's example is great, the one guy that can pass the test they aren't interested in because he was too expensive. Well, if you wanna play the game, play the game. If your budget dictates that you find a "technician" and pay them $50K a year, well align your expectations. If are looking for an "Engineer" and will pay them $100K, again align your expectations. But don't expect that you'll find an "Engineer" who will take a "Technician" role and technician pay. "We are looking for a guy that knows everything except what they are worth!". Candidates are NOT like capital projects, don't treat them as such.

Pressure during an interview is different than pressure in a manufacturing facility. Dropping a "test" like this during an interview especially w/o notice to the candidate prior is really poor practice in my opinion. I can understand this if you have presented the interview process to the candidate and they have some means to prep for the test topic(s). But then again, maybe it was 5 years ago they messed with PLC5s and block transfers and now don't even have the means to prep for it so they can read manuals and try to freshen up the memory but it doesn't build much confidence.

In my opinion leverage their references and take them through the facility and probe them for feedback on the architecture and what they see. This is a better way to separate the "men from the boys", but it only works if the interviewer is one of those "men" and not a "boy" himself.

I agree these types of test can weed out good people but in this case I am just giving a paying customer what he wants. What he does with the setup and how he uses it in their hiring process is his business.

The interviewer in this case is not very well versed in PLC's at all. Just the bare bones basics.

At my day job we do very similar to what ron discribed. We do have verbal written and hands on tests like these but I use them to get a sense of what someone knows but doing poorly on a test does not put them out for the job because I know they may not have experience with this specific hardware and some people just don't test well, etc.

But on the other edge of the sword we do have people come in with a great looking resume and claim they have tons of automation experience that can do voltage check with a DMM, Determine if a fuse is good or bad, or even get online with a SLC via Serial Cable /DF-1.

We don't mind training people and paying for additional training and education but at the same time we don't have time to teach people how to read basic prints and use a meter so we have to employ testing to weed out those type of situations.

 

[The Plc Kid]

We also as Ron suggested hire through the temp agency. We run the ad and do the interviews, tests, etc.

When we decide to hire them though they are paid though the temp agaency until we determine if they are a keeper or not.

Also we don't say after 90 days etc. I have had some that worked under the temp agaency for less than 30 days and it was clear they were a keeper so we moved them onto our payroll and I have had some that we went as long as 8 months because we were not sure about them.

We pay our I&C techs $38.00 hr and that's very high end for the area we are located and non union so we tend to be picky about who we hire.