WEBVTT NOTE This file was generated by Descript 00:01:38.594 --> 00:01:44.112 Duke: Okay, and we are back, Corey and I just, life got busy, man, I 00:01:44.112 --> 00:01:49.132 switched jobs and I moved and all this stuff and man, life got busy. 00:01:49.142 --> 00:01:54.832 But the good news is Corey and I set a CJ and the Duke record for deciding on 00:01:54.832 --> 00:01:56.332 what topic we would talk about today. 00:01:56.332 --> 00:01:58.392 So Corey, tell them what we're going to talk about. 00:01:58.892 --> 00:02:00.092 CJ: Man today, Duke. 00:02:00.112 --> 00:02:01.512 And I agree with you, right? 00:02:01.512 --> 00:02:04.742 Like we did set an all time record on deciding on the topic. 00:02:04.986 --> 00:02:08.776 today, Duke, we're going to talk about how to hire a ServiceNow resource. 00:02:09.856 --> 00:02:12.416 Duke: I think after 15 years, people deserve to know. 00:02:12.501 --> 00:02:15.441 CJ: You know, Duke, you would think after 15 years, , that, this would 00:02:15.451 --> 00:02:19.591 be something that's easy to do, but I still find , it is tricky for many 00:02:19.591 --> 00:02:23.601 people, even many people who have hired ServiceNow resources previously. 00:02:24.541 --> 00:02:27.371 Duke: Yeah, I think, a lot of people do have the hang of it, ? But the real 00:02:27.371 --> 00:02:32.815 trick is, if I'm hiring an expert in something that I'm not an expert in, 00:02:32.875 --> 00:02:34.905 , how does one even go about doing that? 00:02:35.171 --> 00:02:38.458 And, even though all the time that's gone by, I think , even various 00:02:38.458 --> 00:02:43.473 recruiting companies, they just, don't have the skill to figure out. 00:02:43.473 --> 00:02:44.892 Is Does the walk match the talk? 00:02:45.527 --> 00:02:45.887 CJ: Yeah. 00:02:45.887 --> 00:02:51.751 I don't think that recruiters are, talent vetting, , positions. 00:02:52.071 --> 00:02:56.634 Though, I think we assume that they should be, but there's no way, , because 00:02:56.814 --> 00:02:58.994 you're hardly ever going to find a recruiter that's just going to 00:02:58.994 --> 00:03:00.604 specialize in one type of position. 00:03:01.024 --> 00:03:01.314 Right. 00:03:01.314 --> 00:03:02.324 I mean, you do find them, right? 00:03:02.324 --> 00:03:05.474 There are some people who are only like, we only hire ServiceNow resources. 00:03:05.474 --> 00:03:06.184 This is what we do. 00:03:06.417 --> 00:03:09.137 But given the turnover in the recruiting space, it's really hard 00:03:09.137 --> 00:03:11.207 to find folks who are in that niche. 00:03:11.207 --> 00:03:12.567 And that's the only thing that they do. 00:03:12.787 --> 00:03:16.907 So if you're hiring IT folks, ServiceNow folks, SQL folks, 00:03:16.957 --> 00:03:18.287 information security folks, right? 00:03:18.287 --> 00:03:21.694 If you hire and all is that whole gamut, If you're good enough to judge 00:03:21.694 --> 00:03:25.584 the talent on all of those people, maybe you should be on the other end, 00:03:28.764 --> 00:03:32.654 Duke: Yeah, I do think there's a misconception out there that is hopeless. 00:03:32.654 --> 00:03:35.894 Like, if I don't have the technical skill, I really do have to roll 00:03:35.894 --> 00:03:39.604 the dice and on what I think, but I don't think that's true anymore. 00:03:39.604 --> 00:03:43.724 I think there's ways to ask questions where you can. 00:03:44.049 --> 00:03:46.569 You can kind of suss out whether they know what they're talking about or 00:03:46.917 --> 00:03:47.347 CJ: okay. 00:03:47.551 --> 00:03:48.101 All right. 00:03:48.126 --> 00:03:48.176 Duke: not. 00:03:48.176 --> 00:03:49.746 So hopefully we'll take on some of that. 00:03:50.121 --> 00:03:50.561 CJ: Yeah. 00:03:50.591 --> 00:03:52.531 I think that's what the people want to hear, right? 00:03:52.531 --> 00:03:57.181 They want to hear how they can, as a non expert find the experts so that their 00:03:57.181 --> 00:03:59.504 projects and their teams can get better. 00:03:59.826 --> 00:04:05.179 Duke: So my first piece of advice is, to learn how to categorize the answer, right? 00:04:05.189 --> 00:04:08.659 So are they talking about people? 00:04:09.029 --> 00:04:15.432 Are they talking about processes or are they talking about the tool specifically? 00:04:15.432 --> 00:04:15.952 I think. 00:04:15.952 --> 00:04:20.349 People can give very compelling answers, talking about people and processes that 00:04:20.359 --> 00:04:26.189 they've had exposure to as an alternative to talking about areas of the product that 00:04:26.189 --> 00:04:28.589 they should have demonstrated expertise. 00:04:28.599 --> 00:04:29.249 Do you know what I mean? 00:04:29.844 --> 00:04:30.064 CJ: Yes. 00:04:30.669 --> 00:04:33.459 Duke: You can't help, but pay attention to the specifics that are talking about, 00:04:33.519 --> 00:04:37.029 but if you just take a deep breath and just step back a little bit, and say, 00:04:37.029 --> 00:04:40.579 but as good as the answer is, are they talking about the tool or are they 00:04:40.579 --> 00:04:42.069 talking about people and processes? 00:04:43.091 --> 00:04:45.421 , CJ: you outline 3 different scenarios, right? 00:04:45.421 --> 00:04:47.701 You got people, you got process, you got the tool, right? 00:04:47.911 --> 00:04:49.101 We'll call it product, right? 00:04:49.101 --> 00:04:52.947 If we want to , get all profity and how would you evaluate what the candidate is 00:04:52.947 --> 00:04:55.047 saying based on each one of those buckets? 00:04:55.372 --> 00:04:55.972 Duke: How would you about? 00:04:56.182 --> 00:04:56.512 Okay. 00:04:56.572 --> 00:05:00.192 I think that the skill that is most in demand. 00:05:00.359 --> 00:05:03.219 Is people who can build like, make it go. 00:05:03.764 --> 00:05:04.194 CJ: Yeah. 00:05:04.479 --> 00:05:08.469 . Duke: And so even if they're not like a hardcore developer, they 00:05:08.469 --> 00:05:10.979 might be on the implementation side of the house where they just 00:05:10.979 --> 00:05:13.119 need to know how the thing works. 00:05:13.449 --> 00:05:17.109 You could spend a day in a workshop talking about resource management and 00:05:17.109 --> 00:05:19.829 SPM and not know a lick of JavaScript. 00:05:20.524 --> 00:05:21.194 CJ: Yes, 00:05:21.229 --> 00:05:24.129 Duke: you're still like technically capable because that's a 00:05:24.129 --> 00:05:26.012 complicated airplane to pilot, 00:05:26.347 --> 00:05:26.897 CJ: man. 00:05:27.047 --> 00:05:27.647 Seriously? 00:05:27.932 --> 00:05:31.824 Duke: So If that's the most in demand thing, and you're trying 00:05:31.824 --> 00:05:34.994 to vet goods, does this person really have the goods or what? 00:05:35.360 --> 00:05:39.510 listen to if they're telling you about the product or, I 00:05:39.520 --> 00:05:40.630 don't want to say fooled, right? 00:05:40.630 --> 00:05:42.220 Everybody's just trying to do the best they can. 00:05:42.340 --> 00:05:46.614 But, but if somebody is going in the wrong direction, if I say, okay, 00:05:46.614 --> 00:05:49.724 tell me about resource management. 00:05:49.724 --> 00:05:49.774 Okay. 00:05:50.424 --> 00:05:52.144 Your experience in resource management. 00:05:52.144 --> 00:05:56.444 And they're talking about workshops that they've done for resource management and 00:05:56.454 --> 00:06:00.224 documentation they've made, or like how they gathered requirements or something 00:06:00.224 --> 00:06:03.784 like this, but they're not telling you how resource management works. 00:06:04.230 --> 00:06:04.650 CJ: Yep. 00:06:04.910 --> 00:06:05.420 Duke: You know what I mean? 00:06:05.420 --> 00:06:08.230 They're not, again, I don't want to say like they're avoiding, right. 00:06:08.230 --> 00:06:08.830 It's just like that 00:06:09.100 --> 00:06:09.840 CJ: No, they, 00:06:10.080 --> 00:06:13.920 Duke: but they're just, like, they don't have the hard goods that you 00:06:13.920 --> 00:06:17.020 want, or maybe you need to refocus them. 00:06:17.020 --> 00:06:19.160 So I would say like, don't be afraid to repeat yourself. 00:06:19.510 --> 00:06:21.520 Tell them to stop back up. 00:06:21.870 --> 00:06:23.350 Here's what I meant by the question. 00:06:24.140 --> 00:06:24.670 CJ: yes. 00:06:25.030 --> 00:06:25.420 Yeah. 00:06:25.440 --> 00:06:28.270 When I'm talking to candidates, , what I tell them is that they 00:06:28.270 --> 00:06:29.500 have to know their audience. 00:06:29.700 --> 00:06:34.530 . , and I think, is one of the , biggest things, , when you're trying to get a 00:06:34.560 --> 00:06:36.460 any job, especially a service now job. 00:06:36.670 --> 00:06:36.920 Right? 00:06:36.920 --> 00:06:40.990 So if I come on and I started asking you questions about, very specific things. 00:06:41.360 --> 00:06:41.520 Right. 00:06:41.520 --> 00:06:44.780 Let's talk about business rules or let's talk about how to build a custom app 00:06:45.030 --> 00:06:49.920 or let's talk about, how flow works and how can I call that from a script and 00:06:49.920 --> 00:06:53.834 then, leverage integration hub to, run an integration through the flow, right? 00:06:53.834 --> 00:06:56.164 Like I start asking you questions like that. 00:06:56.164 --> 00:06:58.794 And you're talking about workshops that you ran, right? 00:06:58.794 --> 00:07:01.974 Like we're not on the same page and you fail to realize like who 00:07:01.974 --> 00:07:05.304 I am, in terms of the audience that you're communicating with. 00:07:05.482 --> 00:07:09.862 Because I'm clearly a technical, , evaluator , in that role. 00:07:10.312 --> 00:07:14.282 And you're speaking to me from a different, , perspective, not 00:07:14.282 --> 00:07:15.562 one that I'm looking to hear. 00:07:16.222 --> 00:07:20.252 . And so there you disqualified immediately anyway, and it's not, you might even be 00:07:20.252 --> 00:07:22.132 able to speak to me in a technical way. 00:07:22.382 --> 00:07:26.082 But the fact that you've failed to understand that that's what I was asking 00:07:26.082 --> 00:07:30.342 for, even though I'm being very clear about it right to me, it shows a lot about 00:07:30.352 --> 00:07:32.432 how engaged you are in the process, right? 00:07:32.432 --> 00:07:35.102 And how engaged you might be if I were to bring you on. 00:07:35.515 --> 00:07:39.755 Duke: there's strategy one, make sure that you're paying attention to the, type 00:07:39.755 --> 00:07:43.035 of answer you're looking for and your choices are technical people or process. 00:07:43.345 --> 00:07:44.885 and you're probably the harder one. 00:07:44.895 --> 00:07:48.632 That's the harder one, but the one you're most likely going for is. 00:07:48.695 --> 00:07:49.445 the technical. 00:07:49.759 --> 00:07:51.819 This is really where the rubber meets the road, right? 00:07:51.819 --> 00:07:54.399 And where people are fearful, like, I don't have the technical. 00:07:54.399 --> 00:07:55.869 So how do I evaluate the technical? 00:07:55.939 --> 00:08:02.389 I think the answer to that is to ask them to tell stories where the technical 00:08:02.409 --> 00:08:04.249 is a blank that needs to be filled. 00:08:04.264 --> 00:08:07.507 You you can tell, right? 00:08:07.507 --> 00:08:11.207 Like humans are great pattern recognition machines, And so you can 00:08:11.207 --> 00:08:15.087 tell if somebody's struggling and you can tell if somebody's trying to like, 00:08:15.087 --> 00:08:17.087 put the, pull the wool over your eyes, 00:08:17.912 --> 00:08:18.352 CJ: Yeah. 00:08:18.607 --> 00:08:19.177 Duke: you know what I mean? 00:08:19.637 --> 00:08:23.857 So like examples of this would be like, if you, especially if you're 00:08:23.857 --> 00:08:26.577 looking for a developer, like, tell me about a script include that you wrote. 00:08:26.802 --> 00:08:28.072 CJ: And tell me how you use it. 00:08:28.072 --> 00:08:29.662 , tell me where it fit in the instance. 00:08:29.662 --> 00:08:32.302 . Tell me what you were doing with it and why it needed to be a script 00:08:32.302 --> 00:08:33.912 included instead of something else. 00:08:34.617 --> 00:08:36.757 Duke: And somebody who hadn't done it. 00:08:37.482 --> 00:08:39.232 And they're trying to answer anyway. 00:08:39.232 --> 00:08:42.582 You would be able to tell, even if you didn't know yourself, what 00:08:42.582 --> 00:08:43.882 script includes we're all about. 00:08:44.312 --> 00:08:44.912 CJ: I agree. 00:08:45.022 --> 00:08:45.292 Right. 00:08:45.292 --> 00:08:48.032 I think you would be able to tell it enough, the flag that is a 00:08:48.032 --> 00:08:50.432 potential for, a deeper dive. 00:08:50.617 --> 00:08:53.767 Maybe that means, okay, this person needs a level two screening, and 00:08:53.767 --> 00:08:56.507 I need to actually send them to someone who's more technical than me. 00:08:56.777 --> 00:09:00.910 Or, this person actually doesn't really have the goods that I'm looking 00:09:00.910 --> 00:09:04.310 for, and I can tell because they're struggling to even convey something 00:09:04.310 --> 00:09:09.890 technical that they should know in a way that makes me understand or makes me, 00:09:14.025 --> 00:09:19.855 Duke: person, if they can succeed in this, a person who's good at telling stories, 00:09:19.905 --> 00:09:24.365 versus desperately trying to plug a technical answer into a blank or a person 00:09:24.365 --> 00:09:29.755 that can tell stories is de facto more useful, all other things being equal. 00:09:29.765 --> 00:09:31.845 Cause it, it hints at their ability to communicate. 00:09:32.116 --> 00:09:35.386 CJ: Yeah, I would agree that I do think, you know, being able to 00:09:35.386 --> 00:09:39.566 communicate is a prize skill, no matter where you're trying to plug the 00:09:39.566 --> 00:09:44.029 leak, ? Even if it's developer, if it's an architect, even if it's a BA, it 00:09:44.029 --> 00:09:45.689 doesn't really matter manager, right? 00:09:45.689 --> 00:09:49.023 Like, you want that ability to communicate and, someone who can do 00:09:49.023 --> 00:09:53.633 that well is someone, in my opinion, that bears a little bit more scrutiny 00:09:53.843 --> 00:09:56.753 to understand if they meet the other qualifications of the role. 00:09:56.753 --> 00:09:56.768 Right. 00:09:57.168 --> 00:09:59.918 . Duke: A few more examples in this, ask them to tell stories. 00:09:59.928 --> 00:10:05.078 So like, tell me about the hardest technical challenge you had and how 00:10:05.078 --> 00:10:09.478 you wound up solving it, or tell me about the technical accomplishment 00:10:09.488 --> 00:10:10.928 that you are most proud of. 00:10:11.148 --> 00:10:14.918 And this is another way where you kind of like do that step back and 00:10:14.918 --> 00:10:16.698 monitor the category of the answer. 00:10:16.798 --> 00:10:16.998 Right? 00:10:17.028 --> 00:10:20.595 Because if they start talking about how, political the situation was and 00:10:20.595 --> 00:10:23.890 trying to get stakeholders across the finish line, yeah, that's good and all. 00:10:24.110 --> 00:10:26.720 But it's not talking about the technical challenge, 00:10:27.665 --> 00:10:28.065 CJ: right. 00:10:28.760 --> 00:10:29.130 Duke: right? 00:10:29.180 --> 00:10:34.606 A technical challenge would be something like, Oh, we had to homebrew our own on 00:10:34.636 --> 00:10:38.226 call scheduling system because fill in the blank, the default, the out of the 00:10:38.226 --> 00:10:40.046 box one wasn't good enough in this aspect. 00:10:40.046 --> 00:10:44.096 Or, we had to integrate with two systems simultaneously 00:10:44.106 --> 00:10:45.506 for like e bonding solution. 00:10:45.516 --> 00:10:46.006 You know what I mean? 00:10:46.166 --> 00:10:47.076 That will sound technical. 00:10:47.076 --> 00:10:51.657 And they will talk about the objects that couldn't work, wouldn't work. 00:10:51.657 --> 00:10:53.566 They needed extra research on. 00:10:54.711 --> 00:10:55.041 CJ: Yep. 00:10:55.411 --> 00:10:55.681 Yep. 00:10:55.731 --> 00:10:56.401 Absolutely. 00:10:56.506 --> 00:10:59.566 Duke: and you you don't have to be in a position where of equal or better 00:10:59.566 --> 00:11:03.240 technical capability, you could just say, tell me a story and you'll know if it's 00:11:03.270 --> 00:11:04.550 good enough or not, you'll just know. 00:11:04.889 --> 00:11:07.479 CJ: I think, during the storytelling phase, right? 00:11:07.499 --> 00:11:11.119 It does give you good information on how aligned this person is going to be , with 00:11:11.119 --> 00:11:13.839 the, criteria that you have, right? 00:11:13.839 --> 00:11:16.709 Because again, . It's about knowing your audience and, 00:11:16.999 --> 00:11:21.339 as you're asking questions, you're looking to hear the person , tick boxes, right. 00:11:21.339 --> 00:11:24.559 They relate to the questions that you're asking in a certain way. 00:11:24.559 --> 00:11:27.939 If you're asking technical questions, you want to hear the answer sound 00:11:27.979 --> 00:11:32.649 technical, . And, I would hesitate to say that anyone like any non technical 00:11:32.649 --> 00:11:34.299 person can do a technical screening. 00:11:34.299 --> 00:11:34.499 Right? 00:11:34.499 --> 00:11:35.589 Like, I don't believe that. 00:11:35.739 --> 00:11:39.579 But I think that you don't necessarily need to be like a standout tech 00:11:39.609 --> 00:11:41.979 person in order to screen a tech. 00:11:42.415 --> 00:11:45.498 I think you, if you have, a base level knowledge of the 00:11:45.498 --> 00:11:47.295 subject matter, then you can. 00:11:47.371 --> 00:11:49.121 use your BS detector, right? 00:11:49.121 --> 00:11:52.451 Like to kind of suss out if this answer, passes mustard or not. 00:11:52.558 --> 00:11:54.528 Duke: May we, should we each give an example? 00:11:55.358 --> 00:11:56.448 CJ: Yeah, no, go for it. 00:11:56.948 --> 00:11:57.358 Duke: Okay. 00:11:58.155 --> 00:12:00.425 technical challenge I had on service now. 00:12:00.675 --> 00:12:06.669 I was doing a workflow for essentially legal service management before there 00:12:06.669 --> 00:12:11.219 was such a thing on service now, and also before there was before Florida is 00:12:11.219 --> 00:12:14.029 that floor designer, , flow designer. 00:12:14.194 --> 00:12:14.664 Was, 00:12:14.999 --> 00:12:16.469 CJ: I think we got one of those now too, though. 00:12:16.469 --> 00:12:21.779 Right, 00:12:21.944 --> 00:12:25.264 , Duke: yeah, so it was, I think it was either before flow designer was out or 00:12:25.264 --> 00:12:26.844 before anybody was really good at it. 00:12:27.254 --> 00:12:27.624 And. 00:12:28.274 --> 00:12:33.194 , how this law practice figured out what cases they would take. 00:12:33.354 --> 00:12:39.024 I know the legal arena has a certain word for it, but it was by far the most insane 00:12:39.054 --> 00:12:41.244 approval process that I had ever seen. 00:12:41.317 --> 00:12:44.687 And so it was basically like, first you pick . Which approval 00:12:44.697 --> 00:12:46.397 framework you had to have. 00:12:46.600 --> 00:12:48.630 And there's like one of 15, let's say. 00:12:48.630 --> 00:12:52.340 And then it wasn't just a simple, like simple majority rules. 00:12:52.340 --> 00:12:56.210 Like you had to weigh the approvals of who, different lawyers who 00:12:56.210 --> 00:13:01.387 would approve would have different amounts of weight to the approval. 00:13:01.387 --> 00:13:07.300 So it was very complex to find out in any amount of approve, deny, or. 00:13:07.455 --> 00:13:11.065 Didn't answer what was actually a green light or not. 00:13:11.335 --> 00:13:14.949 on top of it, just being very difficult to just get your arms around, what 00:13:14.949 --> 00:13:16.459 the heck do you guys even mean? 00:13:16.929 --> 00:13:17.369 CJ: right, 00:13:17.829 --> 00:13:19.409 Duke: Can anybody even draw this? 00:13:19.409 --> 00:13:20.339 This is insane. 00:13:20.759 --> 00:13:23.849 , so beyond that it outclassed all of service. 00:13:23.849 --> 00:13:25.729 Now it's kind of like out of the box tools for it. 00:13:26.029 --> 00:13:27.739 So I ended up having to build. 00:13:28.074 --> 00:13:32.494 A three layered workflow, like a workflow that ran a workflow that looped. 00:13:32.619 --> 00:13:35.179 A different type of workflow. 00:13:35.739 --> 00:13:37.459 So I had nested workflows. 00:13:37.699 --> 00:13:38.019 Yeah. 00:13:38.159 --> 00:13:39.459 I had to figure out a bunch of things. 00:13:39.459 --> 00:13:41.689 I had to say like, how do I nest workflows? 00:13:42.149 --> 00:13:44.879 How do I make a workflow loop? 00:13:45.085 --> 00:13:49.982 and then lastly, how do I pass parameters between workflows? 00:13:50.592 --> 00:13:50.812 Right. 00:13:50.832 --> 00:13:53.082 All stuff that flow designers just like, yeah, whatever. 00:13:53.092 --> 00:13:53.822 It's super easy. 00:13:53.822 --> 00:13:54.092 I said, 00:13:54.202 --> 00:13:58.622 CJ: That was just, right. 00:13:59.082 --> 00:13:59.442 Duke: Yeah. 00:13:59.562 --> 00:14:01.912 And so that was, that, that, that was extraordinarily difficult. 00:14:01.912 --> 00:14:06.116 Cause I knew about workflow editor, But I didn't know about nesting workflows. 00:14:06.136 --> 00:14:09.736 I didn't know about parameterization and I didn't know about workflow 00:14:09.806 --> 00:14:12.966 loops, like kind of do this until inside of a workflow. 00:14:13.516 --> 00:14:15.876 Um, So, that's my example. 00:14:16.366 --> 00:14:16.936 CJ: Gotcha. 00:14:17.196 --> 00:14:21.026 , yeah, mine is, I had to build , an integration for a client, , to 00:14:21.046 --> 00:14:22.946 Microsoft team foundation server. 00:14:23.376 --> 00:14:27.676 , but the client didn't actually have a team foundation server dev environment. 00:14:28.531 --> 00:14:28.951 And 00:14:34.076 --> 00:14:41.521 Exactly, . So I had to, spin up my own team foundation. 00:14:41.521 --> 00:14:45.601 So now it just so happens to be that I happened to be the perfect 00:14:45.601 --> 00:14:47.256 person to do this for this client. 00:14:47.741 --> 00:14:51.551 Because I have a Microsoft action packs description, which gave me access 00:14:51.861 --> 00:14:54.241 to Microsoft team foundation server. 00:14:54.521 --> 00:14:54.801 Right? 00:14:54.801 --> 00:14:56.591 And so I had a license. 00:14:56.591 --> 00:14:56.881 Right? 00:14:56.881 --> 00:15:01.681 And so I was able to install that on my local computer, set up my own mid server, 00:15:01.861 --> 00:15:07.791 connected up to my own, developer instance and then build out like , the things, 00:15:08.001 --> 00:15:11.451 and then obviously in an update said, but build out, the requirements as they were 00:15:11.451 --> 00:15:13.111 given to me , in the dev instance now. 00:15:13.651 --> 00:15:15.951 That's still only get me about 20 percent there, right? 00:15:15.951 --> 00:15:19.591 Because they'd done some things with theirs versus what I'd done with mine. 00:15:19.771 --> 00:15:21.071 And so there were things, right? 00:15:21.081 --> 00:15:23.441 Like, so there's stuff that's in their environment. 00:15:23.441 --> 00:15:24.141 That's not in mine. 00:15:24.141 --> 00:15:28.854 And so I'm trying to represent that as best way I can, try and, show. 00:15:29.229 --> 00:15:32.969 Progress and validation and all that kind of stuff. 00:15:32.969 --> 00:15:36.799 . But in an environment that is similar but unfamiliar for 00:15:36.799 --> 00:15:39.019 them and so on and so forth. 00:15:39.049 --> 00:15:40.539 And it was just a cluster. 00:15:40.699 --> 00:15:44.889 And then the team foundation server APIs were not great. 00:15:45.204 --> 00:15:49.764 , the client didn't really understand how they were using it very well either. 00:15:49.884 --> 00:15:53.634 And there was , work items and all kinds of like craziness and how they, 00:15:53.774 --> 00:15:57.294 distinctions and how they were using it versus, , how Microsoft intended for some 00:15:57.294 --> 00:15:58.804 of this stuff to be used out of the box. 00:15:59.054 --> 00:15:59.774 , and. 00:15:59.859 --> 00:16:06.849 you put all of that stuff together and it was just kind of like, yeah, I don't know. 00:16:07.249 --> 00:16:10.659 I don't know where this is going or how, we're going to get there. 00:16:10.726 --> 00:16:12.306 we're just, and they're like, yeah, just keep building. 00:16:12.306 --> 00:16:12.896 It's looking good. 00:16:12.959 --> 00:16:13.489 keep building. 00:16:13.729 --> 00:16:16.079 I don't know that project ever got to production. 00:16:16.099 --> 00:16:20.369 Honestly, it was one of those really weird things where they paid me 00:16:20.579 --> 00:16:22.039 a considerable amount of money. 00:16:22.304 --> 00:16:25.864 To build something that I don't think that they ever actually ended up using. 00:16:26.154 --> 00:16:29.284 I think there was a merger or something and they ended up moving to some other 00:16:29.284 --> 00:16:31.344 tool and they just scrapped all the deaf. 00:16:32.064 --> 00:16:32.684 And 00:16:32.839 --> 00:16:33.409 Duke: Brutal. 00:16:33.804 --> 00:16:34.414 CJ: yeah, 00:16:34.479 --> 00:16:38.149 Duke: those could be not, not outcomes aside, right? 00:16:38.709 --> 00:16:42.439 I love the work where it's just, this is an experiment. 00:16:42.459 --> 00:16:43.859 Everybody knows it's an experiment. 00:16:44.799 --> 00:16:45.439 You know what I mean? 00:16:45.449 --> 00:16:49.549 And it just kind of takes so much weight off in terms of, are we building towards 00:16:49.549 --> 00:16:51.529 requirements and has requirements changed? 00:16:51.539 --> 00:16:56.239 It's just kind of like, can we do something that turns A's into B's? 00:16:56.579 --> 00:16:56.939 CJ: Yes. 00:16:57.004 --> 00:16:58.504 Duke: You just kind of, you know, I love those. 00:16:58.534 --> 00:17:00.064 I love those kinds of jobs, man. 00:17:00.124 --> 00:17:00.604 Love them. 00:17:01.289 --> 00:17:02.509 CJ: Yeah, no, absolutely. 00:17:02.699 --> 00:17:04.169 But I think, the thing is, right. 00:17:04.169 --> 00:17:07.289 If I give, if anyone listens back to both of those stories, . I think 00:17:07.289 --> 00:17:09.769 that they would be able to say, yeah, those guys seem like they 00:17:09.769 --> 00:17:10.719 know what they're talking about. 00:17:11.089 --> 00:17:17.519 . And whether or not we do always subject to interpretation, but I think we could 00:17:17.519 --> 00:17:19.189 pass, you know, we could pass a screening, 00:17:19.874 --> 00:17:22.574 Duke: Yeah, I think it's one of those, pattern recognition things, right? 00:17:22.574 --> 00:17:26.814 Like if somebody could get through there, like sounding technically competent. 00:17:27.909 --> 00:17:29.309 And we'll fool you. 00:17:29.329 --> 00:17:29.909 You know what I mean? 00:17:30.439 --> 00:17:32.699 Like those people were going to fool you anyway. 00:17:33.469 --> 00:17:33.839 CJ: yeah, 00:17:34.149 --> 00:17:35.949 Duke: Like they're a con artist, right? 00:17:35.949 --> 00:17:39.919 It's just, and those people exist and really good people get stymied by them. 00:17:39.919 --> 00:17:42.889 So, but this is just to get you through most of the, you know what I mean? 00:17:43.149 --> 00:17:45.999 Most of the people that don't have the, what you're looking for. 00:17:46.379 --> 00:17:46.759 CJ: yeah. 00:17:46.759 --> 00:17:49.729 And what I would even say is it's probably to get you just to look 00:17:49.729 --> 00:17:51.569 through the level one, right. 00:17:51.599 --> 00:17:52.789 Of screening of this. 00:17:52.789 --> 00:17:52.969 Right. 00:17:52.969 --> 00:17:56.829 Because in my opinion, like in order to still get to that, um, that place 00:17:56.839 --> 00:18:00.789 where you have the person that you want to hire, there's still more work to do. 00:18:00.949 --> 00:18:01.319 Right. 00:18:01.329 --> 00:18:04.689 Duke: So we talked about assessing the category of their answer. 00:18:04.909 --> 00:18:07.739 Then we talked about getting them to tell stories, right? 00:18:07.749 --> 00:18:09.729 Fill in the blank where the blank is technical. 00:18:09.989 --> 00:18:12.939 , now what we're going to do with the last part of the show is we've got 00:18:12.939 --> 00:18:14.819 a few questions that you can borrow. 00:18:15.009 --> 00:18:17.249 It doesn't know if you know the answers or not. 00:18:17.489 --> 00:18:18.089 but. 00:18:19.249 --> 00:18:21.449 Again, it'll be, one of those things where the people will know 00:18:21.459 --> 00:18:24.779 or they will not know, and it will be very, very difficult to fake. 00:18:25.219 --> 00:18:31.232 So one category of these is to say things that are true, but get people 00:18:31.232 --> 00:18:35.522 to explain the why behind them say things that might not necessarily 00:18:35.522 --> 00:18:37.012 be true and get them to audit you, 00:18:38.417 --> 00:18:40.357 CJ: Oh, man, I love this. 00:18:41.027 --> 00:18:42.477 I really love this. 00:18:42.477 --> 00:18:46.722 it's like two lies and the truth, right? 00:18:47.313 --> 00:18:50.577 Duke: so, , one, this is kind of assumed true and then get them to auto 00:18:50.577 --> 00:18:55.277 explain, what would tell you whether you should make a flow or a sub flow? 00:18:55.357 --> 00:18:55.887 Sure. 00:18:56.318 --> 00:18:57.308 CJ: what would tell you that? 00:18:57.833 --> 00:18:58.113 Right. 00:18:58.113 --> 00:19:02.173 I mean, I, I know, you know, I know, but I'm gonna ask you to answer it though. 00:19:02.223 --> 00:19:03.473 Duke, since you asked the question, 00:19:04.473 --> 00:19:11.190 Duke: Um, so, if you get the idea that one or two of these actions are repeatable. 00:19:11.342 --> 00:19:15.032 Especially if you're in a flow and you're doing a four each and it's going to loop 00:19:15.042 --> 00:19:21.232 through three or four, three, or I would say any more than three actions in a 00:19:21.242 --> 00:19:24.922 do this until, or in a four each, like I would just consider pop, packing that 00:19:24.922 --> 00:19:27.612 into a sub flow just for the readability. 00:19:27.822 --> 00:19:29.962 And since I think Utah. 00:19:30.012 --> 00:19:31.092 They've made that way easier. 00:19:31.102 --> 00:19:33.512 Cause you could basically like click, click, click, you could click three 00:19:33.512 --> 00:19:36.492 of the actions in your flow and you could just say, convert to subplot. 00:19:37.229 --> 00:19:37.749 CJ: Yes. 00:19:38.124 --> 00:19:39.384 Duke: it does it in an instant. 00:19:39.564 --> 00:19:41.954 Now who could fake an answer like that? 00:19:43.184 --> 00:19:43.594 You know, 00:19:44.449 --> 00:19:44.869 CJ: yeah, 00:19:45.374 --> 00:19:47.654 Duke: I gave insights about versions. 00:19:47.984 --> 00:19:50.174 , I talked about the actual mechanics of doing it. 00:19:50.204 --> 00:19:52.374 And then I had a good idea about how and 00:19:52.699 --> 00:19:57.219 CJ: yes, the completeness of your answer lends itself to me evaluating 00:19:57.219 --> 00:20:01.242 it to be true, Or at least evaluating it to be on the right path to truth, 00:20:01.312 --> 00:20:03.772 the truthiness of it is present, right? 00:20:03.772 --> 00:20:07.552 Because the answer feels complete and it also feels scoped 00:20:07.722 --> 00:20:09.352 appropriately to the question. 00:20:10.317 --> 00:20:10.987 Duke: Hmm. 00:20:11.157 --> 00:20:12.057 Scoped appropriately. 00:20:12.057 --> 00:20:12.547 I like that. 00:20:12.547 --> 00:20:12.757 Yeah. 00:20:13.282 --> 00:20:13.702 CJ: Yeah. 00:20:14.016 --> 00:20:17.726 you know, another 1 would be like, why is it generally a bad idea to add 00:20:17.726 --> 00:20:20.872 fields to task or to the CMDB CI table? 00:20:21.122 --> 00:20:22.872 When you ask a question like that. 00:20:22.937 --> 00:20:24.837 You know, you might get a couple of different answers. 00:20:24.847 --> 00:20:27.127 Somebody might tell you, well, it's not really a bad idea. 00:20:27.613 --> 00:20:31.463 And then you say, okay, so explain why you don't think is a bad idea. 00:20:31.513 --> 00:20:31.793 Right? 00:20:31.793 --> 00:20:32.113 Because 00:20:32.453 --> 00:20:34.073 Duke: The explanation is the critical part. 00:20:34.403 --> 00:20:35.233 CJ: exactly. 00:20:36.233 --> 00:20:36.833 Exactly. 00:20:36.833 --> 00:20:37.053 Right? 00:20:37.053 --> 00:20:38.758 So the question is a setup. 00:20:38.758 --> 00:20:41.148 Because honestly, it could go either way. 00:20:41.148 --> 00:20:44.608 I do think that, , there are some cases where you should add the fields 00:20:44.818 --> 00:20:46.648 to the task table or to the CMD. 00:20:46.978 --> 00:20:49.108 Seem to be on the score CI table, right? 00:20:49.108 --> 00:20:50.468 Like , there's some, times, right? 00:20:50.468 --> 00:20:52.858 But you should be able to explain that because those 00:20:52.868 --> 00:20:54.458 times, could run out of control. 00:20:54.458 --> 00:20:57.382 Like if you just added things willy nilly, and if you feel like the answer 00:20:57.382 --> 00:21:01.322 is no, I'd like to know why you think it's no too, because again, there are 00:21:01.322 --> 00:21:05.362 some times, but most of the time you want to do, you don't add those things, 00:21:05.392 --> 00:21:09.222 especially on tables that are as massive as task and see them to BCI, right. 00:21:09.222 --> 00:21:12.672 You want to add those things in places where they know the fields 00:21:12.672 --> 00:21:13.682 are going to be more relevant. 00:21:14.072 --> 00:21:17.928 Cause there are different branches of these tables that also have 00:21:17.928 --> 00:21:20.038 different have sub branches, right? 00:21:20.038 --> 00:21:23.548 And maybe, you know, you only need it on a sub branch, right? 00:21:23.558 --> 00:21:23.738 Like, 00:21:23.858 --> 00:21:27.968 Duke: can't be understood how risky it is, but I would like, I wouldn't say never. 00:21:28.338 --> 00:21:28.638 Right. 00:21:28.668 --> 00:21:35.288 Like I'd still, I still like daydream about having a finance type field on 00:21:35.288 --> 00:21:39.958 task to basically say this task is associated with CapEx, OpEx or none. 00:21:41.345 --> 00:21:45.412 And then you could basically imagine All tasks being part 00:21:45.432 --> 00:21:47.272 of a global cost framework. 00:21:48.062 --> 00:21:49.852 Like do my incidents cost me anything? 00:21:49.852 --> 00:21:52.512 And if so, is it a capitalized thing or is an OpEx thing, 00:21:54.022 --> 00:21:56.132 CJ: Oh, man, that's that's deep. 00:21:56.142 --> 00:21:57.152 Duke: know, and you think about. 00:21:57.942 --> 00:21:59.362 about audits. 00:21:59.372 --> 00:22:02.302 So all the tasks that come out of GRC, 00:22:02.683 --> 00:22:03.113 CJ: Yeah, 00:22:03.622 --> 00:22:08.182 Duke: SPM, like projects, project tasks, that's a mind screw, right? 00:22:08.182 --> 00:22:08.832 Projects. 00:22:08.902 --> 00:22:11.622 A lot of people think of projects as being CapEx or OpEx, but you 00:22:11.622 --> 00:22:15.462 can really think about project tasks as being CapEx or OpEx too. 00:22:16.152 --> 00:22:18.822 You can have OpEx expenses in a CapEx project. 00:22:20.987 --> 00:22:21.357 CJ: right. 00:22:21.357 --> 00:22:28.277 Like, you know, and so like, right, like, you start getting deep and you 00:22:28.277 --> 00:22:30.747 start framing things that way and say, huh, never thought about that. 00:22:30.757 --> 00:22:31.887 That makes a lot of sense. 00:22:31.887 --> 00:22:32.197 Right. 00:22:32.417 --> 00:22:35.127 At the very least is 1 of those things like, okay, all 00:22:35.127 --> 00:22:35.987 right, you kind of get this. 00:22:36.027 --> 00:22:38.057 I can tell you know, your way around the system. 00:22:38.153 --> 00:22:39.183 And I think that's important. 00:22:39.492 --> 00:22:39.792 Yeah. 00:22:39.802 --> 00:22:43.942 , it is one of those things when you get deep into this thing and you start 00:22:43.942 --> 00:22:46.842 having those conversations , with the right people, and you start getting 00:22:46.842 --> 00:22:49.782 answers like that, it's like, yeah, okay. 00:22:49.782 --> 00:22:50.442 All right. 00:22:50.442 --> 00:22:51.162 All right. 00:22:51.312 --> 00:22:52.027 I can send you to the client 00:22:53.717 --> 00:22:56.557 Duke: yeah, and there's all kinds of other stuff like explain 00:22:57.087 --> 00:22:58.527 when you would use a scope, 00:22:58.919 --> 00:22:59.139 CJ: Ooh, 00:22:59.413 --> 00:22:59.903 Duke: right? 00:23:00.038 --> 00:23:02.198 CJ: Don't get me ranting about scopes on here, man. 00:23:03.193 --> 00:23:06.233 Duke: Yeah, that one's I mean that you should get an answer from that if they 00:23:06.233 --> 00:23:09.693 haven't if they don't have a good answer That's a huge red flag since it's such a 00:23:10.193 --> 00:23:11.923 like it's a controversial topic, right? 00:23:12.288 --> 00:23:12.688 CJ: Yeah, if they 00:23:12.743 --> 00:23:15.633 Duke: You're somewhere between there's people out there who are legit like you 00:23:15.633 --> 00:23:17.773 should do nothing outside of scope nothing 00:23:18.338 --> 00:23:18.778 CJ: Yeah, 00:23:19.168 --> 00:23:19.408 Duke: Right. 00:23:19.408 --> 00:23:22.628 And then there's other people who are like, gosh, there's 00:23:22.628 --> 00:23:24.178 still stuff that scopes can't do. 00:23:24.828 --> 00:23:28.652 CJ: I think if, like, when I asked that question, if I don't get like, 00:23:28.652 --> 00:23:32.782 any somewhere in that answer, like, someone cursing scopes, because 00:23:32.782 --> 00:23:36.052 there are way too many of them and having to spread development 00:23:36.052 --> 00:23:37.612 across so many of them is annoying. 00:23:37.612 --> 00:23:41.292 If I don't get at least that part of the answer to, then I feel like you 00:23:41.292 --> 00:23:42.462 haven't been doing this long enough. 00:23:43.412 --> 00:23:43.712 Duke: Yeah. 00:23:43.822 --> 00:23:45.612 All that stuff's getting better by the way. 00:23:45.632 --> 00:23:47.238 Like a little birdie told me, 00:23:49.538 --> 00:23:50.358 um, 00:23:50.418 --> 00:23:50.968 CJ: Fair enough. 00:23:51.808 --> 00:23:53.128 Duke: So let's rapid fire some more. 00:23:53.128 --> 00:23:58.218 I would say like a great way to test a dev is to ask them about 00:23:58.868 --> 00:24:01.618 methods about ServiceNow APIs. 00:24:02.388 --> 00:24:05.178 So if you don't know what an API is, it's just like, it's 00:24:05.188 --> 00:24:06.918 things built in JavaScript. 00:24:07.628 --> 00:24:10.388 That ServiceNow can use versus building your own thing. 00:24:10.685 --> 00:24:12.705 Big, huge example is glide record, right? 00:24:12.705 --> 00:24:16.585 So it's the, it's the ServiceNow API for querying the database. 00:24:17.772 --> 00:24:19.572 I think, well, I'm not a developer, right? 00:24:19.572 --> 00:24:22.292 Like I'm not a developer's developer, but that's how I explain it. 00:24:22.292 --> 00:24:28.372 But I would say, don't ask them to explain it, say something like, tell me 00:24:28.372 --> 00:24:34.102 about two methods from glide record that are not ad query and ad encoded query. 00:24:36.922 --> 00:24:36.942 CJ: Yeah, 00:24:37.162 --> 00:24:39.842 Duke: Cause that'll basically tell you that they've explored it a bit. 00:24:39.892 --> 00:24:40.662 Do 00:24:40.822 --> 00:24:43.892 CJ: true, that's true because those are both like the things that 00:24:43.952 --> 00:24:45.792 immediately pop that pop to mind. 00:24:45.792 --> 00:24:46.302 Right. 00:24:47.232 --> 00:24:48.242 You know, I mean, I 00:24:48.342 --> 00:24:48.982 Duke: you have any? 00:24:49.292 --> 00:24:49.972 I know mine. 00:24:50.552 --> 00:24:52.202 CJ: Yeah, you know, I, I got a few, right? 00:24:52.202 --> 00:24:56.196 Like, you know, um, I'd say, um, I'm drawing a blank. 00:24:56.496 --> 00:24:58.586 See, you see, this is how it, this is how it happens. 00:24:59.026 --> 00:24:59.646 Duke: no, for sure. 00:25:00.996 --> 00:25:02.766 Didn't know I was interviewing for a job today. 00:25:02.936 --> 00:25:04.716 CJ: like, what's going on here? 00:25:04.726 --> 00:25:06.396 I thought I was co hosting a podcast. 00:25:06.696 --> 00:25:08.236 I'm on, I'm on trial. 00:25:09.676 --> 00:25:10.936 Duke: I would do like get roll count. 00:25:11.233 --> 00:25:12.243 CJ: the one I was thinking about. 00:25:12.363 --> 00:25:12.713 Duke: yeah. 00:25:12.813 --> 00:25:13.923 add or condition. 00:25:14.443 --> 00:25:15.343 Um, 00:25:15.543 --> 00:25:15.943 CJ: that one. 00:25:16.603 --> 00:25:17.523 Duke: yeah, yes. 00:25:17.523 --> 00:25:18.343 One hard to wield. 00:25:18.386 --> 00:25:20.846 my favorite is dot underscore next. 00:25:21.133 --> 00:25:21.983 CJ: tell me about that one. 00:25:21.983 --> 00:25:22.813 I never used that one. 00:25:23.143 --> 00:25:26.573 Duke: Yeah, it's for it's for a circumstance where you might have a 00:25:26.573 --> 00:25:32.103 field on the table called next and you still want to see if the glide record 00:25:32.133 --> 00:25:35.433 object has a next like the function next. 00:25:36.028 --> 00:25:38.948 Without confusing it of the field next. 00:25:40.018 --> 00:25:40.618 CJ: Got it. 00:25:40.648 --> 00:25:41.068 Okay. 00:25:41.718 --> 00:25:41.928 Yeah. 00:25:41.928 --> 00:25:44.898 I that, so that's, I'm gonna say that that's bad architecture. 00:25:44.898 --> 00:25:48.528 If you put a field next on your table, knowing that, you know, 00:25:48.528 --> 00:25:50.328 you could do a, uh, a.next. 00:25:50.328 --> 00:25:50.988 That, that is, 00:25:51.188 --> 00:25:53.868 Duke: Oh, you got me curious now on whether ServiceNow did it because 00:25:53.868 --> 00:25:55.228 they built a field called next. 00:25:55.398 --> 00:25:56.663 CJ: I would, yeah. 00:25:56.963 --> 00:25:57.983 Mm mm-Hmm. 00:25:58.728 --> 00:25:59.178 . Yeah. 00:25:59.178 --> 00:26:01.578 I mean, you know, you know, do things happen 00:26:04.218 --> 00:26:04.848 ? Um. 00:26:04.908 --> 00:26:05.858 Duke: my PDI here. 00:26:08.378 --> 00:26:11.238 , CJ: I think one of the other things that I'd probably ask, , do 00:26:11.238 --> 00:26:13.718 you know the difference between glide record and glide aggregate? 00:26:13.958 --> 00:26:16.318 and tell me some of the main differences, right? 00:26:16.328 --> 00:26:17.138 Differences, right? 00:26:17.138 --> 00:26:19.218 The pointed differences, right? 00:26:19.248 --> 00:26:22.818 To which I would say, , glide aggregate uses the database versus, 00:26:22.868 --> 00:26:25.058 . You know, glide record doing the actual lookup, right? 00:26:25.058 --> 00:26:28.208 So you get a performance benefit on, , the glide aggregate if you're just 00:26:28.208 --> 00:26:30.468 doing, , aggregated methods, right? 00:26:30.468 --> 00:26:34.118 But also glide aggregate doesn't allow you to do updates, right? 00:26:34.118 --> 00:26:37.918 So, if you did get a record, set from that and you want to do something to it. 00:26:38.408 --> 00:26:42.398 You'd have to then to call a glide record, query in order to actually do that. 00:26:42.408 --> 00:26:44.998 And there's also some hacks, right? 00:26:44.998 --> 00:26:50.328 Because glide aggregate allows you to do grouping where glide record lookups don't. 00:26:50.758 --> 00:26:54.328 And so, there's sometimes when you might not actually want to count, 00:26:54.328 --> 00:26:56.518 but you might just want to group some records and then do something 00:26:56.518 --> 00:26:58.008 to the, to those group records. 00:26:58.288 --> 00:27:00.328 And so you want to chain both of these things together. 00:27:00.588 --> 00:27:01.758 And so those things, right? 00:27:01.758 --> 00:27:03.768 Lynn, like if I start hearing this stuff, like I know I'm 00:27:03.768 --> 00:27:04.878 dealing with a rock star, right? 00:27:05.128 --> 00:27:07.028 Like this, somebody who's been around the block a little bit 00:27:07.048 --> 00:27:10.653 Duke: especially if they do stuff beyond just the whole like Add 00:27:10.653 --> 00:27:12.213 aggregate and get aggregate. 00:27:12.338 --> 00:27:12.648 CJ: yeah. 00:27:13.210 --> 00:27:14.170 Duke: there's a function in there. 00:27:14.170 --> 00:27:17.470 I just don't know it off the top of my head right now, but it kind of 00:27:17.470 --> 00:27:21.320 like aggregates, but only if it's above a certain area to begin with. 00:27:21.320 --> 00:27:21.630 Right. 00:27:22.460 --> 00:27:26.630 So like if you said, get me the sum of each of the groupings, but only 00:27:26.630 --> 00:27:27.990 the sums that are over a hundred, 00:27:28.715 --> 00:27:29.075 CJ: Oh, 00:27:29.670 --> 00:27:32.550 Duke: like you can get glide aggregate to do that in like one line. 00:27:33.385 --> 00:27:34.275 CJ: What? 00:27:34.940 --> 00:27:35.610 Duke: it's awesome. 00:27:36.350 --> 00:27:38.670 Um, I have a YouTube video on it. 00:27:38.670 --> 00:27:40.450 I'll go put it in the, I'll put it in the description 00:27:40.545 --> 00:27:42.445 CJ: you should, you should definitely put that in description 00:27:42.445 --> 00:27:44.125 below, but this is where, right. 00:27:44.125 --> 00:27:47.005 When I was, um, acknowledging it, uh, it was on the, , the keynote 00:27:47.005 --> 00:27:48.745 panel talking about now assist. 00:27:48.745 --> 00:27:49.055 Right. 00:27:49.295 --> 00:27:53.665 You know, where I was, where I lean heavily on, , now assist. 00:27:53.665 --> 00:27:57.275 It's like, Yeah, I don't, I can't remember all of the glide aggregate stuff. 00:27:57.275 --> 00:28:00.565 I don't use it nearly enough, but I remembers, right? 00:28:00.705 --> 00:28:04.725 So it's like, I'm just gonna write this thing out and let AI build this query for 00:28:04.735 --> 00:28:08.475 me and glide aggregate because I can't, , it's like you, like, whatever you just 00:28:08.475 --> 00:28:10.025 said, , I've never even heard of that. 00:28:10.025 --> 00:28:13.305 But now I got to watch your video because I'm curious, , I think now 00:28:13.305 --> 00:28:17.505 assist for me really come in handy because there's so much stuff , that 00:28:17.505 --> 00:28:21.015 I've learned and so much of it that is not immediately accessible on RAM. 00:28:21.265 --> 00:28:21.495 Right? 00:28:21.495 --> 00:28:24.615 Like I kind of, you know, I flashed it to the bio somewhere and trying 00:28:24.615 --> 00:28:26.655 to find it as Sometimes difficult. 00:28:26.925 --> 00:28:28.515 Let the AI do that. 00:28:29.350 --> 00:28:30.210 Duke: We got a few more minutes. 00:28:30.210 --> 00:28:33.130 You want to rapid fire some more questions that you could ask people? 00:28:33.485 --> 00:28:34.635 CJ: Yeah, no, absolutely. 00:28:34.655 --> 00:28:38.455 One of the other things I love to ask about is like, why should you not 00:28:38.455 --> 00:28:40.225 use glide records in a client script? 00:28:40.365 --> 00:28:41.765 Like a glide record query in a 00:28:41.850 --> 00:28:42.400 Duke: Oh yeah. 00:28:42.400 --> 00:28:42.740 Yeah. 00:28:42.850 --> 00:28:43.150 Yep. 00:28:43.670 --> 00:28:44.600 Definitely got to know that. 00:28:45.000 --> 00:28:45.800 I think it, I don't know. 00:28:45.800 --> 00:28:48.040 Does it, does it fully restrict you from doing it now? 00:28:48.495 --> 00:28:50.985 CJ: I think it does restrict you from doing it now. 00:28:51.455 --> 00:28:53.675 Um, you know, which is funny because over time, right? 00:28:53.675 --> 00:28:55.305 Like as long as we've been in the game, right? 00:28:55.305 --> 00:28:57.145 It's like, that used to be a thing you could do. 00:28:57.496 --> 00:29:00.386 and then, it became like, Oh, you shouldn't do this. 00:29:00.616 --> 00:29:02.706 And then it became, Oh, don't do this. 00:29:03.636 --> 00:29:07.206 And then it became like, Oh, and we're stopping you from doing this. 00:29:07.476 --> 00:29:08.036 Duke: I got one. 00:29:08.396 --> 00:29:08.736 CJ: Yeah. 00:29:09.543 --> 00:29:12.583 Duke: what makes you decide to use a catalog item over a record producer 00:29:12.620 --> 00:29:14.030 since they both produce records? 00:29:14.333 --> 00:29:14.813 CJ: Yeah. 00:29:15.303 --> 00:29:16.663 That's a good question, right? 00:29:17.053 --> 00:29:18.323 What I'd say is. 00:29:18.658 --> 00:29:21.778 If you have something that it was number of reasons, right. 00:29:21.778 --> 00:29:25.658 But for me, one of the key reasons is if I'm trying to just produce a record 00:29:25.658 --> 00:29:27.518 that's on an existing table, right. 00:29:27.518 --> 00:29:30.458 And I want the end user to be able to input that data without 00:29:30.458 --> 00:29:31.588 me having to walk them through it. 00:29:31.588 --> 00:29:32.458 That's a record producer. 00:29:32.458 --> 00:29:32.748 Right. 00:29:33.168 --> 00:29:37.788 , if I'm trying to build a mini app, then that's a client that's a catalog item. 00:29:38.065 --> 00:29:38.915 . That's got a flow. 00:29:38.945 --> 00:29:42.865 It's got defined delivery and execution fulfillment, that sort of thing. 00:29:42.865 --> 00:29:45.255 And it's going to be the same thing every single time. 00:29:45.571 --> 00:29:45.881 . That's it. 00:29:45.891 --> 00:29:46.491 That's the cat log. 00:29:46.491 --> 00:29:46.701 I don't 00:29:47.073 --> 00:29:48.843 Duke: Can you use GS log in scope? 00:29:49.708 --> 00:29:49.938 CJ: do. 00:29:49.938 --> 00:29:51.468 Don't ask me about GS log. 00:29:54.108 --> 00:29:55.018 I, I don't, 00:29:55.123 --> 00:29:56.723 Duke: Whereas I like to call it GS what? 00:29:58.818 --> 00:30:05.058 CJ: Yeah, my, , Immediately accessible, , knowledge of how to log things in service. 00:30:05.068 --> 00:30:11.231 Now stopped at somewhere around, I don't know what Geneva and, so 00:30:11.231 --> 00:30:15.541 whenever I, I have to do anything that's like a complex login, I'm 00:30:15.541 --> 00:30:17.131 going to Google to look it up first. 00:30:17.291 --> 00:30:19.481 So I honestly, I have no fricking idea. 00:30:19.481 --> 00:30:21.801 And I end up on your fricking video often. 00:30:21.801 --> 00:30:26.221 Yeah. 00:30:26.246 --> 00:30:30.076 Duke: answer GS log doesn't work in scope or at least years ago, it didn't. 00:30:30.106 --> 00:30:34.226 And that's when they started out with, started doing the GS error info and worn. 00:30:34.516 --> 00:30:35.946 So you use those inside of scope. 00:30:36.046 --> 00:30:36.966 Um, 00:30:37.071 --> 00:30:39.141 CJ: I write all of that, but just give me the log. 00:30:39.151 --> 00:30:41.021 I just want to, I just want to see it in the log. 00:30:41.031 --> 00:30:43.971 Why can't I just like, I've got to remember all these freaking things. 00:30:43.971 --> 00:30:45.391 Just give me just log everywhere. 00:30:45.391 --> 00:30:45.871 I'm good. 00:30:46.121 --> 00:30:46.921 Good old days. 00:30:47.351 --> 00:30:48.271 All this change. 00:30:48.811 --> 00:30:49.761 Get off my grass, man. 00:30:49.761 --> 00:30:49.851 Get 00:30:49.886 --> 00:30:52.556 Duke: if you're asking them about methods and different in different 00:30:52.556 --> 00:30:54.116 funk and different, , API. 00:30:54.126 --> 00:30:57.736 So there's like, let's just list off some of the API is like, tell me about methods 00:30:57.736 --> 00:31:03.884 in glide record in glide aggregate in glide system in G form in G user, right? 00:31:04.214 --> 00:31:04.854 Those are five. 00:31:04.854 --> 00:31:05.704 You can take to the bank. 00:31:05.714 --> 00:31:06.754 They'll be in the description below. 00:31:06.754 --> 00:31:08.904 But if you just ask people to describe methods from there. 00:31:09.479 --> 00:31:09.659 Right. 00:31:09.659 --> 00:31:10.899 They either know or they don't know. 00:31:11.599 --> 00:31:12.059 CJ: Yeah. 00:31:12.079 --> 00:31:12.889 No, you're right. 00:31:12.989 --> 00:31:13.869 You're absolutely right. 00:31:14.269 --> 00:31:16.959 And you would like to be for them to be able to tell you where. 00:31:17.519 --> 00:31:17.789 Right. 00:31:17.799 --> 00:31:22.425 And, and so another thing I want to, point out too, . Is that if you're 00:31:22.425 --> 00:31:25.185 a person asking these questions and you're not technical, like you 00:31:25.185 --> 00:31:26.495 should have an answer sheet too. 00:31:27.945 --> 00:31:29.535 . Because they're going to add, they're going to answer these 00:31:29.535 --> 00:31:32.835 questions and you should have at least some level of being able to 00:31:32.835 --> 00:31:35.015 cross check for terms or something. 00:31:35.115 --> 00:31:37.125 To be able to say, yeah, no, this is all right. 00:31:37.125 --> 00:31:38.045 You're on the right track. 00:31:38.365 --> 00:31:38.555 Yeah. 00:31:38.555 --> 00:31:40.825 Because some of this stuff, like, you know, I don't expect that. 00:31:40.845 --> 00:31:45.285 Random regular recruiter to know the difference between G form and G user. 00:31:45.965 --> 00:31:47.093 Yeah, um, 00:31:47.323 --> 00:31:50.389 Duke: wow, that we're like 37 minutes of record 00:31:50.739 --> 00:31:51.489 CJ: Dude, it's crazy. 00:31:52.869 --> 00:31:56.949 So one of the easiest, , methods , of validating whether or not you're 00:31:56.949 --> 00:32:01.049 hiring the right person is to hire somebody like me to talk to them. 00:32:03.069 --> 00:32:03.559 Duke: Good one. 00:32:03.879 --> 00:32:04.109 Good one. 00:32:05.019 --> 00:32:05.419 CJ: Right. 00:32:05.469 --> 00:32:07.739 I mean, but I mean, that's just kind of what it is, right? 00:32:07.739 --> 00:32:12.229 At some point, depending on what level of person you're looking to hire, it 00:32:12.229 --> 00:32:16.069 makes sense to pay a little bit to make sure that you're hiring the right person. 00:32:16.069 --> 00:32:18.669 Because onboarding and offboarding people is expensive, right? 00:32:18.679 --> 00:32:19.879 Training folks is expensive. 00:32:19.879 --> 00:32:23.759 All that time that you invest in somebody, you get like through two months, right? 00:32:23.759 --> 00:32:25.269 And then you're like, damn, this is the wrong person. 00:32:25.924 --> 00:32:31.584 And, sometimes if that's like an architect, now your projects in danger, 00:32:31.834 --> 00:32:35.214 like they might have made a whole bunch of really bad decisions that you're going to 00:32:35.224 --> 00:32:37.964 have to unwind or something or anything. 00:32:38.048 --> 00:32:41.387 , one of the main things to figure out when you're trying to figure out how to hire, 00:32:41.438 --> 00:32:47.128 a service now person is, At what scale at what level of impact does this person 00:32:47.128 --> 00:32:55.778 have on the project or the team and then right whether or not you can justify an 00:32:55.798 --> 00:33:01.438 expert to actually help you screen this person to at least give you a little 00:33:01.438 --> 00:33:05.958 bit more comfort than what you might otherwise have if you're not an expert. 00:33:06.363 --> 00:33:07.213 Duke: Yes. 00:33:07.443 --> 00:33:12.083 I think the whole thing is you have to screen the person who you'd make, 00:33:12.173 --> 00:33:16.403 who would make you feel comfortable that they screen the right people. 00:33:16.723 --> 00:33:20.903 but there is something to be kind of like a freelance talent evaluator. 00:33:20.903 --> 00:33:21.253 Right. 00:33:23.158 --> 00:33:23.408 CJ: Is it? 00:33:23.828 --> 00:33:24.538 Maybe it is now. 00:33:24.558 --> 00:33:25.438 It is now. 00:33:25.983 --> 00:33:26.383 Duke: Yeah. 00:33:28.403 --> 00:33:28.773 No, I mean, 00:33:28.858 --> 00:33:30.118 CJ: hanging out my shingle. 00:33:30.363 --> 00:33:30.603 Duke: Yeah. 00:33:31.376 --> 00:33:32.726 it's got huge upsides 00:33:33.059 --> 00:33:34.074 CJ: Yeah, I would think so. 00:33:34.184 --> 00:33:36.674 Duke: traditionally like, Oh, let's go to a recruiter, they'll find something, 00:33:36.674 --> 00:33:38.964 but the recruits have the same problem you do is like, they don't have the 00:33:38.964 --> 00:33:40.364 technical expertise to evaluate. 00:33:40.384 --> 00:33:45.394 So if you want to be sure, and you want somebody with deep tech chops, then just, 00:33:45.527 --> 00:33:50.717 pay the, however much it takes, I mean, the amount you'll pay to get a freelance. 00:33:51.122 --> 00:33:56.182 vetted expert to vet the other experts is going to be way less than the time you're 00:33:56.182 --> 00:34:00.596 going to waste hoping, Or the risk of not getting somebody who's good enough, 00:34:00.787 --> 00:34:05.507 CJ: yes, the risk of not getting somebody who is good enough, , because that person 00:34:05.507 --> 00:34:08.377 can do a lot of damage before you realize that they're not the right person. 00:34:08.427 --> 00:34:11.117 And sometimes you, depending on the client, depending on the 00:34:11.117 --> 00:34:13.777 project, depending on the company, depending on the team, right? 00:34:13.787 --> 00:34:17.317 It can be hard to unwind, not only the damage that that person does, but 00:34:17.317 --> 00:34:19.577 also unwind them from the team, right? 00:34:19.577 --> 00:34:22.717 Like some companies they don't remove people quickly. 00:34:23.097 --> 00:34:24.457 I say, is that the best way to put that? 00:34:24.677 --> 00:34:26.407 Yeah, they don't remove people quickly, right? 00:34:26.417 --> 00:34:29.617 Like they're and so you get someone embedded in the team and they're not 00:34:29.617 --> 00:34:34.077 working out, but you've got to let that kind of process play out long enough. 00:34:34.077 --> 00:34:38.197 So that, , some arbitrary person has waited some arbitrary 00:34:38.197 --> 00:34:41.197 amount of time to then decide that, this thing isn't working. 00:34:41.477 --> 00:34:42.947 And so now you can get rid of them. 00:34:42.947 --> 00:34:46.047 But how much productivity that you lose during that time, right? 00:34:46.047 --> 00:34:49.047 How much, , impact the team morale , that you sacrifice, right? 00:34:49.047 --> 00:34:52.857 And how many things do you technically might have to unwind, right? 00:34:52.887 --> 00:34:56.007 It's just, it's just something that's not worth it, right? 00:34:56.007 --> 00:35:00.337 It's definitely never, it's never worth it to skimp on evaluation 00:35:00.347 --> 00:35:03.887 when the evaluate, when the position that you're , hiring for had a huge 00:35:03.907 --> 00:35:08.047 impact on the success or failure of either the project or the client. 00:35:09.702 --> 00:35:13.842 Duke: well, we are at 41, 42 minutes of record. 00:35:14.172 --> 00:35:15.602 CJ: Bloody hell, make it enough for lost time? 00:35:16.212 --> 00:35:20.342 Duke: yeah, so if he felt like this is super informative and you feel 00:35:20.342 --> 00:35:24.072 like you want some help maybe in getting, , evaluating the talent that 00:35:24.072 --> 00:35:25.892 you want building out your service. 00:35:25.892 --> 00:35:28.762 Now, , we will have Corey's information in the description below. 00:35:28.762 --> 00:35:29.592 You can reach out to him. 00:35:30.022 --> 00:35:31.696 And, hopefully Corey gives me a little bit of color. 00:35:35.866 --> 00:35:37.046 CJ: Drinks on me, buddy. 00:35:37.056 --> 00:35:37.766 Drinks on me. 00:35:39.111 --> 00:35:39.901 Duke: Put on my tab, right? 00:35:42.071 --> 00:35:44.461 Alright, thanks for watching everyone, we'll see you on the next one. 00:35:45.246 --> 00:35:45.696 CJ: Later. 00:35:48.471 --> 00:35:49.121 Duke: Still no outro.