In the year 2004, Greg Sturgeon undertook a study to assess the feasibility of using a resume builder by the students of upper level undergraduate students in electrical and mechanical aerospace engineering who participate in capstone project called Integrated product teams (IPT). These students were required to work on a developing a real product for a real client and an additional requirements was to develop a resume for the same because most of these students were next in line to join the work force. The resume was created by the students themselves with the help of template document in Microsoft word, created by Sinceree Gunn.
Greg sturgeon realized that the procedures to create and edit resume were decent but not fool proof. Therefore, the need had arisen to see how well the online resume builder worked in fulfilling the requirement of IPT project. The aim was to look at resume builder that enables a student make his or her own choice with regard the content and formatting. The purpose of this study was to look at a resume builder that is easy to use and maintain and offers real improvement to the editing process and not just a rewrite job. Therefore Greg chose the following selection and evaluation criteria, compatibility with Windows 2000 and XP; availability of a demo copy; editable document file output (e.g. Word, HTML, etc); and availability of backup support. Further on resume builders were evaluated on how well it: allows multiple formats/ number of templates, allows user flexibility with a number of preset categories, has easy to use interface, helps him or her upload large amount of information, is secure and has a good editing process.
Greg evaluated three resume builders against the criteria listed above, Autoresume.com, resumeeasy.com and Resume Builder 3.15 by Sarm Software. On the study of the three resume builders, the following observations were made.
- Autoresume.com offered its users flexibility of format but there was a content limitation. The users were not allowed to enter as much information as was possible in IPT resume builder. In addition, it did not have a privacy policy.
- Resumeeasy.com though was better as compared to autoresume.com in terms of formatting and content, but the basic services were the same.
- The third resume builder i.e. Resume Builder 3.15 by Sarm software was a desktop application and offered much more flexibility in terms of both content and formats. It also was considered the most secure amongst all three. However, like the above two, despite the fact that it was easy to use, it did not have any feature that facilitated better editing.
Another alternative that was thought of was to build a customized resume builder according to the requirements of IPT project. This would have all the required features of formatting and content. However, it would also require tremendous outlay of resources at the project’s discretion and would be high maintenance.
The conclusion of this study as mentioned by Greg Sturgeon was that it was in the best interest of all to continue with the current system of resume writing and editing and in the meanwhile keep looking at the prospect of developing an in house resume builder.
Tags: resume, resume builder