Upon reviewing the candidate’s work history, there is a pattern and examples of the candidate being a consultant/freelancer. Therefore, for work examples to be eligible for consideration, the candidate must demonstrate they were an employee, founder, executive, or board member of the exampled company/project for that example to qualify as evidence. Additionally, the organisation itself must be a valid “product-led” technology company, as defined by Tech Nation guidelines. Exceptions to the
employment status may only be made if the candidate’s skillset is considered exceptionally rare and typically unavailable on the employment market, or the agency they worked through is especially small and niche. This is not the case with this candidate.
The candidate fails to meet the requirements for Mandatory Criteria due to a lack of significant evidence that they are a nationally or internationally recognised leader of a technology field. Contributions to the *** is respected, but does not exemplify recognition as a leader of a technology field. We also cannot see how being a speaker for *** has any relevance at all on being a technology leader.
It is required that the candidate demonstrate leadership through a mixture of exceptional references from a wide network of established industry leaders that detail how, what, and why the candidate is a leader of their field; examples of significant media recognition; examples of high profile speaking engagements or editorial engagements; exceptionally high compensation with respect to their peer
group; or other forms of recognisable contributions that are celebrated in their own right of which the candidate is a validated author.
The candidate fails to meet the requirements for Optional Criteria 2 due to a lack of eligible evidence they have a sustained track record of out-of-occupation contributions that significantly advance a field of digital technology. Their volunteering work shows no signs of advancing a technology field. We recognise their acceptance as a mentor for *** but OC2 requires a track record of out-of-occupation contributions. This single example does not meet that standard.
The candidate fails to meet the requirements for Optional Criteria 3 due to a lack of eligible evidence they have a track record of significantly and continually contributing to product-led technology companies as an employee, founder, board member, or executive resulting in significant impact to those organisations with detailed evidence that directly links the candidate’s provided examples of contributions to the success metrics of those organisations. OO is not a product-led company. There is no employment evidence for AB or CD.
On the basis of the above, we do not endorse this application.
I am a software developer and I have never been a freelancer. Here are the evidences i provided
MC
OO - a mobile application that I built for a cooperative society. I used it for MC but they referred to it under OC3. meanwhile, i ensured that I named everything properly based on the criteria that I used it for
*** - I volunteered for a UK NGO to build their application
*** - I worked for this company in the UK and I had a media recognition but here is what they said about it (Contributions to the *** is respected, but does not exemplify recognition as a leader of a technology field)
AB - this was an application that I built at my place of work which got media recognition and several awards was given to the company. It was also contained in my letter of recommendation by the divisional head of the company. They referred to it under OC3 and said there is no evidence of employment…meanwhile, its an application
OC2 - I gave 3 evidence for this and I am surprised to see this - We recognise their acceptance as a mentor for *** but OC2 requires a track record of out-of-occupation contributions. This single example does not meet that standard.
*** volunteering as a mentor for young software developers
*** a public speaking event with over 500 attendants. there was social media recognition and links. (they referred to this in MC1)
*** a volunteer to draft examination questions for one IT certification
OC3
*** this is an application that I built for school management. They didnt mention it at all
*** this is also an online booking management application that I built for a UK company This application increased the productivity of the company by 33% and increased sales by 17%. This innovative application unified the various studios and enabled easy booking of customers, scheduling and rescheduling of bookings without clashing, ability to view tattoo artist calendar and track artist location, automatic receipt generation, email/SMS notification, payment integration, sales report etc.
CD - this was an application that I built at my place of work which got media recognition and several awards was given to the company. It was also contained in my letter of recommendation by the divisional head of the company. They referred to it under OC3 and said there is no evidence of employment…meanwhile, its an application
N.B, I used screenshots of github, commits, and reference letters for all the applications I attached above @Francisca_Chiedu@alex_james and @everyone. Please what do you all think?
Thank you
Thank you for the review. But there is a portion of the tech nation guide that states that technical applicant from non technical organizations are eligible .
Well I think you should have provided employment detail along with salary information which will be more clear for them to know you were employee. CV and LOR are not part of 10 evidences
Yes, I pointed it out to them, but they saw me as a freelancer too. What you are facing now is the same thing I faced when my application was rejected. You can point it to them but you need to show that you are working for them as an employee.
hmm… ok, would it be possible to include those now or I can just point it out during the review process? Does that now mean that I have to provide proof of employment for all the evidences that I provided?
ok, thank you. can you please put me through the review application process and how long it takes to get a response. also, is it possible to remove the evidence that I feel are not so strong or change the evidence to another criteria
As @alex_james said I think review won’t turn out to be positive tbh
Instead you should correct the mistakes and create fresh application. Primary reason they mentioned is product-led which is very hard to crack in review. In fresh application you can add more details
This is my view though.
But ask for review before you make a new application. The OC criteria might be awarded… So it will help you in new application.
What I did in my new application is I tied everything to just a product led company I led…
MC: product I led + new clipping + reference letter from CTO + screenshot of the repo +email conversation
OC3: still the same product I led but with metrics, reviews on the platform + same reference letter I used in MC +asana + Google analytics + employment letter +email conversation
I’m not endorsed yet but I feel it should pass since I was able to previously meet OC2 & 3. The mistake I made in my MC before was to use another company and they see it as freelancing. I later found out that I can use just a single product led company product for my evidence.