We get it; technical ability is a vital aspect of any development role, some assessments are reasonable, and some are unnecessarily lengthy and could ultimately cost you the candidate.

What's helpful and what's harmful? It can depend on three factors:

• At what point of the interview/recruitment process are the assessments introduced?

• Can they be completed within a reasonable amount of time?

• How many other steps are there in the complete interview process?

Suppose the technical tests or assessments are added in too early in the recruitment process and require a large amount of time and commitment. In that case, you're making your candidate jump through unnecessary hoops before they're fully committed, especially if there are three other interview steps following.

From experience, there are high chances you'll find the candidate dropping out of the process or, worse, being headhunted by other organisations who are a lot more agile in their screening process. This is the last thing you want with technical talent so in demand.

When technical assessments are essential, Tom Pollock, partner at Oliver Parks suggests the following:

"If you're looking to assess the technical ability of a software developer/engineer in super competitive, fast paced, aggressive markets, I would recommend a Technical Interview Round (2nd stage ideally) rather than a take-home test. People are busy 'take home tests' drop rapidly on the priority list over a company that is willing to be more dynamic and have one of their own technical experts conduct a technical screening, whether this is a series of technical questions, scenario based or a live coding session."