MEMORANDUM

TO: Dr. Rose Norman

FROM: Greg Sturgeon

DATE: April 26, 2004

SUBJECT: A Report on the Feasibility of Using a Résumé Builder for IPT 2005
Résumé Project

Enclosed is my final project for EH 502, entitled “A Report on the Feasibility of Using a
Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Résumé Project,” submitted on April 26, 2004. Based on
an evaluation of three available résumé builders (two online, one off-the-shelf) and an
exploration into the possibility of developing one specifically for the IPT project, I have
concluded that none of the evaluated résumé builders adds sufficient value to the creation
and editing of résumés. The custom résumé builder would offer the best improvement
over the current system, but it too is not recommended at this time because of the
tremendous input of resources it would require. The IPT 2005 résumé project should use
the same résumé development and editing processes as were used this year, and further
study should be conducted to determine the exact costs of developing a custom résumé
builder.

The purpose of my report is to evaluate résumé builders, and determine whether any
would be feasible for the IPT 2005 résumé project. The report begins with background
material describing the current procedures for creating and editing résumés. Evaluation
criteria are then established, based on scholarly research and on interviews with students,
faculty, and a UAH career counselor. The report then details the results of my evaluations
of three available résumé builders, and of my study of the feasibility of developing a
custom résumé builder for the IPT résumé project. The report concludes with
recommendations for the 2005 IPT résumé project.

You will notice that I have replaced ResumeMaker Deluxe, which had been listed as an
evaluation candidate in earlier drafts, because the manufacturer, Individual Software, did
not send the demo copy in time to be evaluated for this report. I have also generally
chosen to use the term “résumé” instead of “resume,” except in URLs (where the accent
marks cause errors if you copy and paste from the report into the address window of a
web browser) and in product names (where I respected the original spellings).

Sincerely,

Gregory H Sturgeon
Enclosure: Final Report (Bound Copy)
3.5” Floppy Diskette

2
A Report on the Feasibility of Using a Résumé Builder
for the IPT 2005 Résumé Project

prepared by
Greg Sturgeon

for
Professor Robert Frederick
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
University of Alabama in Huntsville
EH 502: Problems in Technical Editing
April 26, 2004

4
Informative Abstract
Each year, upper-level undergraduate students in electrical and mechanical and
aerospace engineering have the opportunity to participate in a capstone project called IPT
(for “Integrated Product Teams”). The IPT project gives them hands-on experience
designing a real product for a real client. One of the additional requirements is to develop
a résumé, because most of these students are graduating seniors who will be entering the
work force soon. The résumés that they create are edited and published by
undergraduates in CM/EH 302, Technical Editing, taught by Dr. Rose Norman. The
current procedures used to create and edit résumés are effective but not ideal. At issue
was whether an available résumé builder would improve the résumé creation and editing
processes.
The current procedure for creating and submitting a résumé requires each student
to download a set of instructions and a template document (in Microsoft Word format)
from a web site developed by Dr. Norman. Students are instructed to enter their own
information into the template, then upload it to an online database called Quickbase.
From there, the editing students download the résumés and edit them through three
cycles. The résumés are then published in a booklet and on a web site for potential
employers to view.
In order to evaluate the résumé builders, it is necessary to establish selection and
evaluation criteria. The selection criteria consist of: compatibility with Windows 2000
and XP; availability of a demo copy; editable document file output (e.g., Word, HTML,
etc.); and availability of technical support. Each selected résumé builder was then
evaluated on how well it: allows multiple formats; allows users flexibility within preset
categories; allows users to quickly learn the interface; allows users to add large amount of
information; maintains information in a secure manner; and improves the editing process.
Three résumé builders were evaluated using the criteria listed here.
AutoResume.com offered users some flexibility of format, but not of content. This
résumé builder also did not allow users to enter as much information as the model IPT
résumé contained. It also had no stated privacy policy. ResumeEasy.com, another online
résumé builder, offered more format choices and allowed more content, but otherwise
resembled AutoResume.com. A third résumé builder, Résumé Builder 3.15 by Sarm
Software, was a desktop application, not online. It offered the most flexibility of content
and design, and alleviated the security problems of the online résumé builders. All three
were easy to learn and use, but none of the three added any improvement to the editing
procedures.
An alternative consideration was to develop a résumé builder specifically
designed for the IPT résumé project. A custom résumé builder would allow the most
flexibility and could be designed to produce whatever format and document type was
required. It would also require a tremendous outlay of resources up-front to develop, and
would require more maintenance than the other résumé builders.
The conclusion is that none of the evaluated résumé builders really serves the
needs of the IPT project. It is recommended that the IPT project continue the current
processes for résumé writing and editing, while continuing to explore the possibility of
developing a custom résumé builder.

ii
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations...............................................................................................iv

Introduction...........................................................................................................1

Current IPT Résumé Creation/Submission Process.........................................2

Current IPT Résumé Editing Process.................................................................3

Criteria for Selecting and Evaluating Résumé Builders...................................4

Evaluation of Résumé Builders...........................................................................7

Feasibility of Developing a Custom Résumé Builder.....................................12

Conclusions................................................................................................................14

Recommendations....................................................................................................16

References..................................................................................................................17

Recommended Reading: Résumé Formats and Uses.......................................18

APPENDIX: Graphic Comparison of Résumé Builders Evaluated for This Project

ATTACHMENT 1: From http://mortonweb.uah.edu/ipt2004/resume_info.htm:

“IPT 2004 Résumé Instructions”
“Instructions for Submitting Your Résumé Through Quickbase”
”Tips for Résumé Creation”
”Résumé Frequently Asked Questions”

ATTACHMENT 2: Résumé Template and Models

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Source: Lee R. Duffus, “Comparative assessment of the résumé

and the personal strategic plan: Perspective of undergraduate business
students, human resource professionals, and business executives.”
From Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge
(September 2002)

iii
List of Illustrations
Figure 1: “Education” Input Form, AutoResume.com............................................8
Figure 2: Key Words Entered in “Objective” Input Form, AutoResume.com........9
Figure 3: Sample Input Screen for ResumeEasy.com...........................................10
Figure 4: Screen Capture of Resume Builder 3.15 Editor.....................................12
Table A-1: Graphic Comparison of Résumé Builders............................................A-1

iv
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 1

Introduction
Each year, upper-level undergraduates in mechanical and aerospace engineering,
along with students in electrical engineering and other disciplines, participate in a
capstone course project called the Integrated Product Team (IPT) project. The IPT project
is designed to give the students a hands-on opportunity to apply what they’ve learned in
their courses. They work in cross-disciplinary teams to design a product for a real-world
client, to solve a real-world problem. Because the students who participate are almost all
about to enter the work force, the students are required to create résumés to be published
in a booklet and on a web site. The résumés are edited by an undergraduate technical
editing class, CM/EH 302, taught by Dr. Rose Norman.
Currently, the procedures used by the various groups to create, submit, and edit
résumés are acceptable, but not problem-free. The faculty who lead the IPT project have
been interested in examining how well an available off-the-shelf or online résumé builder
would meet the needs of students in the project and possibly improve the editing
procedures. An ideal résumé builder would allow students to make different format and
content choices to suit their individual needs. It would also be easy to use and maintain.
And it would offer real improvement (not just change) to the editing procedures. Three
résumé builders are evaluated here; as an alternative, this report also begins to explore the
possibility of developing a custom résumé builder, built specifically for the IPT résumé
projects.
To obtain data for this report, I sent out email questionnaires to students in the
IPT 2004 project to get their perspectives on the résumé project. I also conducted
scholarly research, as well as personal interviews with the director of the UAH Career
Center and with the engineering professor who oversees the IPT project. Based on this
research, I designed criteria for evaluating how well résumé builders would suit the needs
of the IPT students. I then searched the Internet using search engines and selected three
résumé builders for evaluation. To study the feasibility of developing a custom résumé
builder, I interviewed a local software engineer who designs and maintains databases and
is familiar with several scripting languages for the web.
The report is divided into essentially three sections. The first section describes
and analyzes the current résumé creation, submission, and editing procedures to
determine areas where improvement is needed. The second section establishes evaluation
criteria and applies those criteria to three résumé builders (two online, one off-the-shelf).
This section also includes a discussion of one possible method of building a custom
résumé builder, one that is database-driven with an online interface for students to use to
create résumés. The final section summarizes the evaluations, and offers
recommendations for the IPT 2005 résumé project.
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 2

Current IPT Résumé Creation/Submission Process

Before I begin the evaluation of résumé builder software, I will describe briefly
the process IPT students currently use to create and submit résumés. In the next section, I
will describe the current editing procedures.
Students in the IPT project create résumés by using a template document created
in Microsoft Word. The résumé template was created by Sinceree Gunn, as part of a
technical communication report for Dr. Rose Norman. It should be noted that the
template document is not what Word considers a template (i.e., a document with the file
extension “.dot”), it is an actual Word document (“.doc”) in which the students copy or
type their own information into spaces containing example placeholders. In the past,
students were given a .dot document, but were unsure what to do with it.
To complete their résumés, the IPT students are given a URL
(http://mortonweb.uah.edu/ipt2004/résumé_instructions.htm) where they can find
instructions for downloading the template and creating their own résumés. This page
contains a hyperlink to the template document; it also contains a list of tips to help
students decide what to include in their résumés, and a set of frequently asked questions
(FAQs) to address common issues. The template is provided as Attachment 2; the
instructions, tips, and FAQs are provided as Attachment 1.
After the students download and save the template document using the prescribed
file naming procedure, they then insert their own information. For assistance, Dr. Norman
has provided two models, one for use by UAH students and one for use by ESTACA
students (see Attachment 2). The responses to an e-mail questionnaire sent to current IPT
students indicate that there were no significant problems with the students’ ability to
follow the instructions and use the models to create their résumés. Editing students,
however, discovered several instances in which the IPT students did not use the template
correctly.
The students submit their résumés for editing by using an online database service
called Quickbase (http://www.quickbase.com/). Each student creates a profile, if one does
not already exist, and uploads the résumé. According to the e-mail questionnaire
mentioned above, only one student reported a problem with Quickbase; she indicated that
she didn’t feel certain of what her editor was working on, and wasn’t sure which version
of her résumé had been edited. No other problems were reported by the IPT students
concerning Quickbase.
All students were required to create and submit a résumé by the assigned deadline
in order to receive credit for the résumé.
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 3

Current IPT Résumé Editing Process

Editing Process: Description

After the résumés are uploaded to Quickbase, the technical editing course
(CM/EH 302) takes on the job of editing and publishing them. (These editing students
must also create and submit their own résumés.) The résumés are divided among the
editors. Each editor is responsible for completing three editing cycles for every résumé: a
hard copy edit, a redline, and a soft copy edit. Instructions and guidelines are given to the
editing students in an Editors’ Handbook, developed by Susan Hackett and Dr. Norman
with assistance from Jennifer Tibbs and Greg Sturgeon. This handbook is provided in
Appendix C.
The first editing cycle, the hard copy edit, is designed to catch obvious errors in
spelling, grammar, punctuation, and style. To correct spelling, grammar, punctuation
errors, the editors follow the Chicago Manual of Style. To identify and correct style
errors, the editors are given a style sheet with information specific to the engineering
disciplines and the IPT project. During the hard-copy edit cycle, the editors may also
make or suggest changes to content (e.g., changing words to present a clearer picture of
job duties).
The editors use the hard copy markups as the basis for the second editing cycle,
the redline edit. Using Microsoft Word’s “Track Changes” feature, the editors make
corrections to the Word files for their assigned résumés. These are then saved (adding
“R” to the filename to indicate a redlined copy, e.g., from DoeJF_rev_00.doc to
DoeJF_rev_01R.doc) and uploaded to Quickbase for the authors to download and review.
The third cycle, the soft copy edit, takes place after the authors have reviewed the
redlined résumés. During this cycle, the editors apply the correct style template and make
any changes needed according to the previous editing cycles and author remarks. The
corrected résumés are saved, and the filenames are incremented by one (e.g., from
DoeJF_rev_01R.doc to DoeJF_rev_01.doc).
After the résumés have gone through the three editing cycles, they are handed off
to different teams for preparation for booklet and web site publication. For booklet
publication, the résumés are compiled into a single Word document and sent to a printer
for publication. For the web site, the résumés are left as individual files, but are converted
from Word format to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). Ideally, no more editing
is needed once the résumés have been handed off for publication.
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 4

Editing Process: Analysis

The editing process generally works well, but with a few snags. Primarily, editors
encountered several instances in which the Word styles could not be properly applied, or
in which changes would not be retained in a document. Dr. Norman and the team leaders
also discovered that the styles would not work correctly if applied to a document that had
had redlined changes accepted. These problems were either worked around or ignored
until just prior to publication. Both the booklet team and the web site team had to make
various corrections to résumés that had style problems introduced by Word.
In addition to the problems with Word, some editors were confused about whether
to upload the edited résumés to Quickbase, or FTP the résumés to the inbox in the
IPT2004 directory on mortonweb. Editors were also confused by the file-naming
procedures. Many students thought that the “rev_01” cycle (the soft copy edit, cycle 3)
came before the “rev_01R” cycle (the redline edit, cycle 2). While these problems are not
necessarily systemic, they were reported widely enough on an e-mail questionnaire that
these editing procedures may warrant a second look (if only to create clearer
instructions).

Criteria for Selecting and Evaluating Résumé Builders

Selection Criteria

The résumé builders evaluated for this study were selected based on how well
they met the following criteria:

• Compatibility with Windows 2000 and XP (off-the-shelf products only)

• Availability of demo copy (off-the-shelf products only)
• Editable document file output (e.g., Word, HTML, etc.)
• Availability of technical support

I chose these selection criteria before searching for résumé builders. To locate and
select résumé builders, I searched on Yahoo! and Google search engines, using “résumé
builder” (quotation marks included, to search by the exact phrase) as my search term. I
found three résumé builders to examine, and rejected two others. For example, Net-
Temps nearly met the criteria, but did not offer an output document (displaying résumés
online instead). ResumeMaker Deluxe, by Individual Software, was planned for
evaluation, but I did not receive the demo copy in time to be evaluated for this report.
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 5

Evaluation Criteria

The criteria for evaluating résumé builder software are derived from two sources,
scholarly research and interviews with Rick Shrout, a UAH career counselor, and Dr.
Robert Frederick, a UAH engineering professor and head of the IPT project. The
scholarly literature presents a general view of the decision-making process in hiring. The
interviews provide insight into how engineering students are groomed to enter the job
market in their fields. This information is necessary as the basis on which to judge
résumé software; we must ensure that the résumé software is evaluated not just on its
ability to improve the process, but also for its ability to generate the end product that the
IPT instructors want for their students.
The current résumé format, as indicated in the template and the models, employs
a chronological structure. The chronological format was selected by Sinceree Gunn
(2000), based on her research into what local companies looked for when examining
résumés. This format, according to Houp et al. (2002), is helpful for college students
because it allows them to highlight their academic progression in their fields. Rick
Shrout, Director of Career Services at UAH, agreed that the chronological structure was
beneficial for UAH engineering students, because most are unlikely to have much actual
job experience relevant to their field. The chronological résumé format allows students to
highlight other experience, such as coursework, particularly projects done for course
credit.
The chronological format is not looked on favorably by all, however. According
to Duffus (2002), “the traditional résumé is perceived as limiting of creative self-
expression, short on emphasizing accomplishments, disallowing effective differentiation
to obtain competitive advantage in getting the interview, and as so stereotyped that it
provides minimal cross-applicant differentiation.” Duffus also criticizes traditional
résumés as being “historical rather than future-oriented,” which may be a decided
disadvantage for students will little “history” in their field. Likewise, Crosby (1999)
contends that “[b]ecause the chronological format emphasizes dates and job titles, it is
often a poor format for … new entrants to the work force.” She suggests that the
functional résumé format is well-suited, because it emphasizes skills over positions held.
Susan Ireland (2000) and Rebecca Burnett (2000) also suggest that the functional format
is better for those without much relevant work experience, because the chronological
format highlights gaps in work history such as a new job seeker might have.
While it is beyond the scope of this report to recommend changes in the specific
format of the IPT students’ résumés, I include this discussion from the literature because
one of the important criteria for evaluating résumé builders is whether they offer a variety
of available formats. This would be a necessary feature if the IPT faculty or editors
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 6

decided to implement a different format in the future, or to allow IPT students to choose a
format to fit their background and taste.
Regardless of the format that is used, because the IPT students are unlikely to
have much real-world experience in their fields outside of the university, they are better
served by emphasizing the work done in their major(s). In addition, in one British study,
as many as two-thirds of the hiring managers surveyed reported that they asked about
applicants’ educational history (Cook 1998). Crosby (1999) recommends that students
include GPA, degree information, and relevant courses, all features that the current IPT
résumé model employs.
According to Cook (1998), several employers reported that they sifted through
applications looking for certain key words, another feature used in the current IPT résumé
model. Seeding a résumé with important key words is important because many employers
now enter résumés into databases and search by key words (Houp et al. 2002). Rick
Shrout also agreed that including important key words in the résumé is important, but did
not agree that they should be listed separately; including them in the body of the résumé,
as is currently required, is sufficient, he said, since most employers are likely to scan the
printed résumés into a database to create a larger search pool (IPT résumés as well as all
other résumés received by that company). Including the separate key words section,
therefore, simply duplicates words that will be located in the database anyway, and
potentially takes up space that students could use for other things. To facilitate
employers’ scanning of the résumés, Shrout also recommended that no font larger than
20-point nor smaller than 10-point be used for the printed résumés. Font size is irrelevant
for scanning electronic résumés, such as HTML.
One additional recommendation Shrout offered was to encourage IPT participants
to list as much material as possible relevant to their intended profession. Including job
experience that is unrelated to the engineering fields does not help the students, and could
divert their attention from other relevant experience they may have that does not fit the
“work experience” category. Shrout also maintained that flexibility was an important
factor. While having a template for students to follow is helpful, he suggests that we
should also allow students some freedom to modify the structure in order to present each
student’s experience and skills in the best possible light.
The preceding discussion articulates the current views about what should go in a
résumé and what it should look like. Because the résumé builders being evaluated are
software products, we must also add technical criteria to the list. For example, because
the IPT students have relatively little time to devote to the résumés, the résumé builders
should be easy to use and not require a great deal of learning time. Second, the résumé
builder interface should allow students the option of backing up, or completing sections
out of sequence, since not all sections will apply equally to all students. The résumé
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 7

builders should allow students to select or modify section titles if necessary. (Ideally, the
résumé builders would allow the users to choose from several possible sections, to create
maximum customization while maintaining consistent format and style.) And finally, the
online résumé builders should have clearly stated privacy policies—what do they do with
the information that students would enter Would they sell information to third parties, or
use information for marketing purposes?
Each résumé builder will be evaluated based on whether or how well it:

• Allows multiple formats (although users may be limited to one or two by the
IPT faculty)
• Allows users flexibility within preset categories
• Allows users to quickly learn the interface
• Allows users to add large amount of information, if necessary (e.g., several
relevant courses)
• Maintains information in a secure manner
• Improves the editing procedures

In addition to these criteria, I will evaluate how well the résumé builders may
improve the editing process. I will also mention cost, although at this point it is uncertain
the extent to which cost will affect the choice of résumé builder for IPT 2005.

Evaluation of Résumé Builders

AutoResume.com (http://www.autoresume.com/)

As the name suggests, AutoResume.com offers an online résumé builder. The

main advantage to this site is that the résumé builder is easy to use; users are walked
through the steps very quickly. The site also provides tips for how to complete several
sections of the résumé. The user-friendly interface works well. In addition, the fact that
this service is online means that students could create a résumé using any computer
platform or browser. It also means that the ESTACA students would have easy access to
the résumé builder. Figure 1 on the next page shows a sample screen of the
AutoResume.com interface (the “Education” input form).
The drawbacks, however, outweigh the benefits. While the interface is easy to
understand and use, the choices for each résumé section are limited. For example, the
current IPT model contains a section called “Key Words,” so that students may highlight
important terms that match their skills. The AutoResume.com model does not have a
section for Key Words, beginning instead with a statement of objective(s). (A section
describing the job seekers objectives is better suited to those job seekers who are
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 8

targeting a specific company or who are switching careers. See Gunn [2000], Crosby
[1999].) The final product is a Microsoft Word document, so presumably the students
could list their key words under the “Objectives” section and change the section title in
the Word document (see Figure 2, below). But this would not appear to add any
additional value above the current procedure.

Figure 1: “Education” Input Form, AutoResume.com (screen capture obtained by the

author from http://www.autoresume.com/)

A second disadvantage is that the space allowed in each section is limited. I tried
to enter the information from the UAH model résumé into the corresponding spaces in
the AutoResume.com builder, but the résumé builder would not allow some of the longer
items to fit. For example, the “Education” input section (shown in Figure 1) only allowed
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 9

me to specify the dates of attendance, school name and location, and major. It included an
open text box in which I tried to enter the remaining information from the model
(“Relevant Coursework,” “Work Sample,” “Honors and Affiliations”), but not all of the
information from the model would fit within the limit of 200 characters. Again, students
could conceivably add information after generating the Word document, but this really
defeats the purpose of using a résumé builder.

Figure 2: Key Words Entered in “Objective” Input Form, AutoResume.com (screen

capture obtained by the author from http://www.autoresume.com/)

Because the output is in Word format, AutoResume.com has no discernible effect

on the editing phase. It is possible that editors could receive passwords from authors
whose résumés they edit, and edit information within the AutoResume.com interface.
Doing this would ensure that the editors did not accidentally introduce style or format
errors into the Word document. The risk of such errors, however, does not justify the
extra work needed for editors to edit inside the AutoResume.com interface.
AutoResume.com advertises that its service costs $19 (payments accepted only by
credit card). I inquired about the possibility of an educational or group rate, and was told
that AutoResume.com offers a group rate, but not for as few as 75 students. (I used 75 as
a guide based on an approximation of the number of résumés included in the 2004 IPT
résumé booklet.)
Finally, AutoResume.com mentions no security or privacy policy. Queries about
this went unanswered.
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 10

ResumeEasy.com (http://www.resumeeasy.com/)

ResumeEasy.com is another online résumé builder, offering many of the same

features as AutoResume.com. For example, users are walked through the steps very
quickly and clearly. Also, ResumeEasy.com provides tips for how to complete sections of
the résumé, including preset “power words” and phrases, shown in Figure 3, below.
Finally, as with AutoResume.com, using an online résumé builder means that students
could create a résumé using any computer platform or browser.

Figure 3: Sample Input Screen for ResumeEasy.com (image downloaded from

http://www.resumeeasy.com/)

ResumeEasy.com appears to exceed the service offered by AutoResume.com in

many respects. ResumeEasy.com offers more format and layout options than
AutoResume.com. This would give students more flexibility to create a résumé better
suited to their information, and would allow for the format to be changed in subsequent
IPT projects. ResumeEasy.com also allows more text to be entered into the input forms
than AutoResume.com allows.
In addition, ResumeEasy.com includes an online copy of the résumé as part of the
service (advertising the URL as http://YOURNAME.checkmyresume.com/). A pre-
existing online résumé would facilitate the development of the résumé web site, as no
résumés would need to be converted to PDF.
Like AutoResume.com, ResumeEasy.com creates résumés in Microsoft Word
format. ResumeEasy.com thus has little impact on the résumé editing process, except to
perhaps speed up development of the web site because of the online résumé feature.
ResumeEasy.com lists the price of its service as $19.95 (payments accepted only
by credit card). My inquiry about educational or group discounts received no response.
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 11

And, as with AutoResume.com, ResumeEasy.com mentions no security or privacy

policy. Queries about this went unanswered as well.

Resume Builder 3.15, Sarm Software

(http://www.sarmsoft.com/products/resumebuilder)

Resume Builder 3.15 is an off-the-shelf résumé builder developed by Sarm

Software. It is compatible with Windows NT, 2000, and XP. It is also compatible with
earlier versions of Windows, but users must download and install a separate file in order
for Resume Builder 3.15 to run on those systems.
Resume Builder 3.15 interface is simple to use, and visually resembles a
simplified version of Microsoft FrontPage (in appearance only—users cannot edit the
résumé content in the large window). Figure 4 on the next page shows a screen capture of
the Resume Builder 3.15 editor. The résumé sections are clearly labeled, although
entering information in each section requires the user to navigate multiple pop-up dialog
boxes. Users can select from 25 different document formats, although some formats
employ unattractive background colors and font styles, and clearly seem to have been
designed for online rather than printed publication. In addition, users can export their
résumés to Microsoft Word, HTML, or to XML. Exporting to XML is designed to
facilitate employers’ scanning résumés into databases, which is a growing consideration
to job seekers nowadays.
Because the information is editable in the application, editors could edit the
résumés in Resume Builder 3.15 instead of in Word, then export the edited document for
publication. This would allow editors to employ a simple kind of single-sourcing, using
one source file to generate a résumé in Word and in HTML (and even XML).
While Resume Builder 3.15 offers many advantages, there are other
considerations that limit its attractiveness. Like its online peers, Resume Builder 3.15
contained preset section titles, and “Key Words” is not one of them. Authors or editors
would still have to manually change this in the output file, or else this section would have
to be renamed to something like “Summary.” (Besides job experience, education, and
skills, the only headings Resume Builder 3.15 allows are “Summary,” “Personal,”
“Publications,” and “Objective.”) Because it is a desktop application, editors would still
need to use some method like Quickbase to get résumés to and from authors. With the
online résumé builders, the résumé data is stored online (although students would
possibly still need to send Word documents to editors.) Also, it might require that the
university purchase multiple site licenses; the normal cost is $24.95 per license, but
educational users would get a discount of 20% off of that price per license. This would
only be a one-time cost, unless upgrade was required, but even so, purchasing enough
licenses to serve all the students involved in the project could approach $2,000. This cost
is comparable to the cost of both AutoResume.com and ResumeEasy.com.
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 12

Figure 4: Screen Capture of Resume Builder 3.15 Editor (obtained by the author)

And finally, Resume Builder 3.15 would make it extremely difficult to serve the
ESTACA students. They would either have to purchase the software, or else devise some
other method of creating résumés that resembles those of the UAH students. While the
product allows users to create résumés in different languages, the software itself does not
come in different languages. If the ESTACA students use a French edition of Windows,
unforeseen compatibility issues may arise.
Privacy of information is not a factor, since the information students enter would
only be stored in a local file.

Feasibility of Developing a Custom Résumé Builder

(This section of my report is based on an interview with Jennifer Bailey, a
software engineer with Boeing who has four years’ professional experience with
databases and XML. She also has some educational experience with CGI and Perl
scripting for the web.)
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 13

Developing a custom résumé builder is a much more complex procedure than

using any of the available off-the-shelf or online products. It would require a significant
commitment of time and money in order to obtain the necessary expertise and software.
However, once the custom résumé builder was completed, the complexity would be
reduced, unless the IPT instructors wanted to make changes to the résumé format or
content. Much of the development time would be devoted to designing the database,
scripting its online interface, and scripting the export mechanism for generating
document types (such as Word, HTML, PDF, XML, etc.). The development phase would
also require testing, both of its technical features (i.e., does it do what it’s supposed to
do?) and its usability (i.e., can an author and editor figure out how to use it correctly?).
The custom résumé builder would consist of a database with an online interface
for authors. Editors would interact directly with the database itself. The online interface
could be scripted in any of several scripting languages, such as ASP, Perl, CGI, or C#,
and could consist of either a single page with drop-down menus for section headings
(e.g., “Key Words,” “Education,” etc.), and text boxes to input the data; or it could
consist of separate pages for each résumé section, again with text boxes for authors to
enter data into. The latter design would more closely approximate the designs of the off-
the-shelf and online résumé builders. In either case, the learning curve for authors would
be no greater than the learning curve required for any of the résumé builders evaluated
above. In fact, the learning curve could even be lessened by having instructions
specifically written with the IPT students in mind. Additionally, the authors and editors
alike could benefit because document format and design issues would be taken out of the
authors’ hands. Authors could concern themselves only with the content at first, and
design considerations could be addressed later in the process.
After authors enter their information into the online interface, the data would be
sent to the database for storage. Bailey noted that any common database could be used,
such as Microsoft Access, SQL server, or Oracle. Others could probably work as well,
she said, but these were the only ones she knew of that provided XML support and could
more easily export data to different document formats. Editors could edit the résumés’
content in the database itself. After the content had been edited, the data would be
exported to create individual résumé documents in several different file formats.
The key advantage to developing a custom résumé builder would be that, by
definition, it would be exactly what the IPT students and faculty want it to be. With the
other available résumé builders, some compromise must be made regarding document
content and format; those products are designed to appeal to a larger general audience.
The custom IPT résumé builder could be tailored to include exactly what the IPT
participants need, and could be modified as needed to accommodate changes in IPT
requirements. Other advantages include: eliminating the current file management system,
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 14

which some editors found confusing; eliminating template and style errors in Word,
because the editing process could take place in the database itself; and creating a true
“single-source” process for creating résumés, with multiple document types generated
from the same source data. Regarding single-sourcing, Bailey recommended building the
database to export to XML as a “base” document format; using XML as a base, she said,
you could create Word documents for printed versions, HTML for online, and PDF for
CD-ROM—XML would also make it easier for employers to scan résumés into their own
databases. Finally, the web site containing the résumés would be reconceived as a
dynamic, “on-demand” site, in which employers could perform custom searches using
multiple criteria (e.g., search by key word and by major).
The greatest disadvantage to developing a résumé builder for the IPT project is
simply the commitment of resources. The IPT faculty would first have to plan what they
wanted, then find someone with the expertise to do it, and to fill in gaps as needed. (This
project could possibly be assigned as an internship to someone in computer science or
management information systems.) Someone would have to obtain the software
necessary as well. The database application and the server on which to run it would be
perhaps the only expenses in this regard, since local computers already have Microsoft
Word and FrontPage, and Macromedia Dreamweaver.
In addition to commitment of resources for development, maintenance would also
be in the hands of the IPT participants. There would be no external “tech support” for a
custom product. Security, likewise, would be a necessary concern of whoever maintained
the database. Because of the complexity of design, it would be difficult to make changes
to the database once IPT project was underway. For example, it require major reworking
of the database to add a different section to the résumés, or to change the type of
document formats to export to. The database would have to go offline for the length of
the modification. Additionally, the editors would almost certainly need training to use the
database application, perhaps more than one session, and this training would have to take
place early in the editing project. And finally, the educational goals of the editing project
might be greatly affected; hard copy edits would not take place until after content had
been edited in database and the data exported to a (most likely) Word document.

Conclusions
It is clear that no available off-the-shelf or online résumé builder will entirely suit
the needs of the 2005 IPT résumé project. None of the products examined proved any
better than the current method for ease of use or customization, and some would not
allow as much information as the current model résumé contains. They do, however,
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 15

offer several document templates to choose from, which would allow students to have
some greater control over their résumés’ appearance without having to manipulate large
sections of information in Word files (e.g., students with more job experience could more
easily place that section before the “education” section). However, they don’t allow users
to customize sections within the résumé builder interfaces (i.e., adding a section of
specific interest to IPT students, like “Project Experience”). Information can be
customized, but really only after the output file has been generated. Also, the text input
areas may not allow as much information as some may wish to enter. Students with
lengthy relevant courses, or with several job duties may have to rethink what they enter.
Such limitations run counter to the idea of letting students create a résumé to suit
themselves; these limitations actually force students to sacrifice the résumé content to
what the résumé builder will allow.
Furthermore, because they all involve entering information into text forms and
then generating a document, no product examined has much effect the current editing
process. At best, the résumé builders are passable because they create a Microsoft Word
document—if the IPT students create résumés using a résumé builder, then the editors
could edit the résumés using the current procedures. Editing within the online résumé
builders’ interfaces would be possible, but would require a greater degree of coordination
between author and editor regarding passwords and login names. File management
processes, web site development, and booklet preparation would remain unaffected by
AutoResume.com; ResumeEasy.com would at least offer an advantage to résumé web
site development. Resume Builder 3.15 would add the benefit of generating résumés in
XML format in addition to Word and HTML formats.
Finally, while AutoResume.com and ResumeEasy.com would improve the ability
of editors to access the ESTACA students’ résumés, questionable privacy policies limit
these services’ usefulness. Vice versa, Resume Builder 3.15 has no such privacy
concerns, but would hinder the ESTACA students’ résumé creation process. Cost of all
three résumé builders is comparable, but all three require the use of a credit card for
payment.
A custom résumé builder is more attractive because it is, by definition, whatever
the IPT project faculty want it to be. It would be developed with the specific needs of the
IPT students in mind. It would be a “local” site, eliminating questions about security (but
putting this responsibility squarely on the IPT project managers). Implementing true
single-sourcing would not only be more efficient in production, but would also give the
editing students a taste of current practices in technical communication today. Single-
sourcing would also allow changes output formats to be made later in the process (if, for
example, you decided that wanted to create XML documents in addition to HTML).
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 16

The greatest limitations of a custom résumé builder would be logistical: cost,

development time, and maintenance. The learning curve for authors would be minimal,
since they would only need to interact directly with the online interface; but the learning
curve for editors would be very steep.

Recommendations
After considering the available résumé builders, and considering building one
tailored for the IPT project, I cannot recommend any résumé builder for the IPT 2005
project at this time. In the long term, the custom résumé builder is the best option, but the
required commitment of resources and the required level of technical knowledge appears
too great for this to be completed in time for IPT 2005. The next step would be to
conduct further interviews with database or e-commerce designers (preferably someone
on-campus, who might eventually be tapped to create the résumé builder) and to conduct
cost analyses to see how much money would be required to pay a developer and purchase
software.
None of the available résumé builders is recommended because none appears to
offer a decided advantage over the current résumé creation and editing processes. The
only real impact that any of the résumé builders has is on the résumé creation process.
These products would not naturally affect file management, editing, or publication, with
the exception of the HTML and XML export features. (I say “naturally” because the
editing process could be pushed into the résumé builder, but this is by no means
necessary or perhaps desirable.) In addition, several small disadvantages, when taken
together, add up to a comparatively large disadvantage. These include: the lack of
clearly-stated privacy policies; the lack of customization within the résumé builder
interface to suit the IPT students’ needs; and the requirement to pay by credit card
(meaning that either each student must use his or her own card, or else someone would
have to provide an account number to dozens of students).
The final recommendation is to continue using the current methods for creating
and editing résumés, but to look further at developing a custom résumé builder.
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 17

References
Bailey, Jennifer. 2004. Personal Interview. April 1, 2004.

Burnett, Rebecca. 2000. Technical communication. 5th ed. Boston: Heinle Publishers.
http://english.heinle.com/burnett/resources/career/résumé/ (accessed February 6,
2004).

Crosby, Olivia. 1999. “Résumés, applications, and cover letters.” Occupational Outlook
Quarterly (Summer): 2–14.

Duffus, Lee R. 2002. “Comparative assessment of the résumé and the personal strategic
plan: Perspective of undergraduate business students, human resource
professionals, and business executives.” Journal of American Academy of
Business, Cambridge (September): 123–128.

Gunn, Sinceree. 2000. “Résumé form and content for entry-level mechanical engineering
majors.” Unpublished report.

Houp, Kenneth W., Thomas E. Pearsall, Elizabeth Tebeaux, and Sam Dragga. 2002.
Reporting technical information. 10th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ireland, Susan. 2000. The résumé guide. http://susanireland.com/ (accessed February 6,

2004).

Jerz, D.G. 2000. Résumés (and cover letters).

http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/technical/resume/index.html (accessed February
6, 2004).

McKinney, Arlise P., Kevin D. Carlson, Ross L. Mecham III, Nicholas C. D'Angelo, and
Mary L. Connerley. 2003. “Recruiters’ use of GPA in initial screening decisions:
higher GPAS don't always make the cut.” Personnel Psychology 56 (4) 823–845.

Shrout, Rick. 2004. Personal Interview. April 7, 2004.

Wilk, Steffanie L., and Peter Cappelli. 2003. “Understanding the determinants of
employer use of selection methods.” Personnel Psychology 56 (1): 103–124.
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman 18

Recommended Reading: Résumé Formats and Uses

Amundson, Norman. 1997. “Myths, metaphors, and moxie: The 3Ms of career
counseling.” Journal of Employment Counseling 34 (2): 76–84.

Aune, Betty. 2000. “Career and Academic Advising.” New Directions for Student
Services 91: 55–67.

AutoResume.com. 2004. http://www.autoresume.com/ (accessed February 4, 2004).

Flippo, Edwin B. 1980. Personnel management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Friedman, Brian, James Hatch, and David M. Walker. 1998. Delivering on the promise:
How to attract, manage, and retain human capital. New York: Free Press.

Kraut, Allen I., and Abraham K. Korman, eds. 1999. Evolving practices in human
resource management: Responses to a changing world of work. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

McMurrey, David A. 2001. “Business correspondence and résumés.” Power tools for
technical communication. Boston: Wadsworth Publishers
http://www.io.com/~hcexres/tcm1603/acchtml/lettov.html (accessed February 6,
2004).

ResumeEasy. 2004. http://www.resumeeasy.com/ (accessed February 4, 2004).

Robinson, Nancy M. 1997. The role of universities and colleges in educating gifted
undergraduates. Peabody Journal of Education 72 (3-4): 217-36.

Rudd, David, and Kelly C. Strong. 1997. “A new model of job training for economic
rebirth.” Journal of Employment Counseling 34 (3): 123–132.

Sarm Software. 2004. Resume Builder 3.15

http://www.sarmsoft.com/product/resumebuilder/ (accessed April 18, 2004).

Stewart, Gregory, Ruth B. Russell, and Dianne B. Wright 1997. The comprehensive role
of student affairs in African-American student retention. Journal of College
Admission 154: 6-11.

Topper, Elisa F. 2003. “Working knowledge.” American Libraries 34 (7): 94.

Ulrich, Dave, ed. 1998. Delivering results: A new mandate for human resource
professionals. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

West Virginia University Career Services Center. “Job Hunting Tips and Resources.”
http://www.ece.wvu.edu/jobs/ (accessed February 6, 2004).
 Appendix

Graphic Comparison of Résumé Builders Evaluated for

This Project
Feasibility of Résumé Builder for IPT 2005 Dr. Rose Norman A-20

Table A-1 below contains a visual comparison of how each résumé builder met the
criteria established for this project.

The résumé builders are evaluated on an ascending scale of 1 to 10 for each criterion. (A
score of 1 in a category means that the résumé builder meets the criterion very poorly; a
score of 10 means that the résumé builder meets the criterion very well.)

Table A-1: Graphic Comparison of Résumé Builders

Evaluation Criteria
Allows
Allows Improves
Résumé Allows Easy to large Security/
multiple editing Cost
Builder flexibility learn amount privacy
formats process
of data

AutoResume 6 6 10 1 1 1 4

ResumeEasy 6 6 10 5 1 1 4

Resume
7 7 8 5 10 1 4
Builder 3.15

Custom
10 10 3 10 8 8 1
résumé builder

Final tallies:

• AutoResume.com: 29/70 (41%)

• ResumeEasy.com: 33/70 (47%)
• Resume Builder 3.15: 42/70 (60%)
• Custom Résumé Builder: 50/70 (71%)
 Attachment 1:

From
http://mortonweb.uah.edu/ipt2004/resume_info.htm:
“IPT 2004 Résumé Instructions”
“Instructions for Submitting Your Résumé
Through Quickbase”
”Tips for Résumé Creation”
”Résumé Frequently Asked Questions”
 Attachment 2:

Résumé Template and Models

 Attachment 3: Key Source

“Comparative assessment of the résumé and the

personal strategic plan: Perspective of undergraduate
business students, human resource professionals, and
business executives.” from Journal of American
Academy of Business, Cambridge (September 2002)
by Lee R. Duffus