Lead Software Engineer

We need to output HTML fragment with headings

for sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Only include sections where posting has real specific content. We need to parse the posting. The posting includes: - Intro paragraph: "The Lead Software Engineer utilizes web and cloud technologies, APIs, and third-party software development frameworks to build and support application solutions. Provides lead support for design and development to one or more application development teams, and leads a team of local or outsourced software engineers to build and support business application solutions." That's about the role. So we can have

About the role

with that paragraph. - Responsibilities: list of duties after "Responsibilities". The text after "Responsibilities" includes many bullet-like sentences separated by periods. We need to put them in

• . Should we split each sentence? Likely each bullet is a responsibility. We'll list each distinct responsibility. Let's extract responsibilities: "Work collaboratively with other development staff, including contract and offshore Software Engineers, and business product owners in an agile environment." "Code, test, identify, implement, and document solutions to business challenges utilizing web and cloud technologies." "Perform design and analysis for deliverables." "Lead large team design sessions for system level architecture solutions." "Serve as a subject matter expert for a wide range of areas, applications, and technologies; mentor other team members in design/coding standards." "Recommend solutions which take into consideration costs, business needs, and system impacts." "Lead analysis and general architectural design across platforms toward the development of end-to-end solutions." "Participate on committees or projects to help define organization-wide standards, processes, and guidelines." "Utilize third-party software development frameworks, open-source libraries, and APIs to rapidly develop basic application solutions." "Lead web development staff, including contract and off-shore developers; may have supervisory responsibility over employees." "Learn and keep pace with the latest advances in the field and rapidly grasp new technologies to support the environment and contribute to project deliverables." "Prepare presentations and lead development meetings." That's all. - Qualifications: The posting has a "Qualifications" heading then bullet list of qualifications. We need to decide whether to put them under Qualifications or Requirements/Skills. The instruction says use headings like About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. We have both Qualifications and Requirements sections. The posting includes "Qualifications" and also "Preferred Qualifications". Also there are many skill-like items (experience with certain technologies). We could treat the main qualifications as Requirements (or Qualifications). The instruction: "Use

  for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." So we can have both Requirements and Qualifications if content exists. But we need to avoid thin sections. Let's see. The posting under "Qualifications" includes: - Bachelor’s degree in computer science, information systems, math, engineering, or other technical field, or equivalent education/experience - Five years of Core Java - Expertise in coding platforms/frameworks (e.g. JAVA, OOD, OOP, Functional Programming, Spring Framework, J2EE Development, OOP, Service Oriented Architecture, Dependency Injection, and Core Architecture) - Three years of experience and expertise in database design techniques and philosophies (e.g. RDBMS, Document, Star Schema, Kimball Model) - Understanding of NoSQL database technologies (e.g. MS Cosmos DB, Apache Cassandra, Amazon DynamoDB) - Four year of development experience with cloud services (e.g. AWS) utilizing various support tools (e.g. EC2, ECS, S3, Kinesis, VMs, Blob, Cosmos, Data Factory, SQL Data warehouse, ARM Templates, Event Hubs) - Experience with build and deployment tools - (Visual Studio, Git/Bitbucket, Maven, Jenkins, Nexus, SQL Management Studio, Nunit, Ajax) - Experience in AI SDLC and AWS AI services - Three years of experience with integration and service frameworks (e.g. API Gateways, Apache Camel, Swagger API, Zookeeper, Kafka, messaging tools, microservices) - Experience with Microservices and REST based API development (e.g. Spring Boot, Spring MVC, Entity Framework, Swagger, Odata, AutoMapper) - Experience leveraging continuous integration/development tools (e.g. Jenkins, Docker, Containers, OpenShift, Kubernetes, and container automation) in a Ci/CD pipeline - Familiarity with modern frontend development frameworks (Angular, React, Vue.js, HTTP, HTML, JS, CSS) - Advanced understanding of software development and research tools - Attention to detail and results oriented, with a strong customer focus - Ability to work as part of a team and independently - Analytical and problem-solving skills - Technical communication skills - Problem-solving and technical communication skills (duplicate) - Ability to prioritize workload to meet tight deadlines Then "Preferred Qualifications" includes: - Understanding of advanced analytics and machine learning concepts and technology implementations - Understanding data warehousing architecture and implementation, including source to target mappings and ETL. - Technology or platform certifications (e.g. AWS) - Knowledge of the financial services industry. Insurance knowledge will be preferred. We also have "Working Conditions" (Office Environment, Work outside of normal business hours may be required, Occasional Travel). That could be under Benefits? Not exactly. Could be under Schedule? Not schedule. Could be under Benefits? Not benefits. Could be under Requirements? Not exactly. Could be under Skills? Not. Could be omitted as boilerplate? It's not cookie/navigation/legal/EEO etc. It's substantive about working conditions. Should we include a section? The allowed headings do not include Working Conditions. Could we put under Benefits? Not appropriate. Could we put under Requirements? Might be okay as part of qualifications? But it's not a qualification. Could we create a "Schedule" section? Not schedule. Could we create a "Benefits" section? Not benefits. Could we create a "Pay" section? Yes we have compensation details. We have compensation: "Compensation The Salary for this position generally ranges between $111,000 - $140,000 annually. Please note that the salary range is a good faith estimate for this position and actual starting pay is determined by several factors including qualifications, experience, geography, work location designation (in-office, hybrid, remote) and operational needs. Salary may vary above and below the stated amounts, as permitted by applicable law. Additionally, this position is typically eligible for an Annual Bonus based on the Company Bonus Plan/Individual Performance and is at the Company’s discretion. Applicants must be authorized to work for any employer in the U.S. We are unable to sponsor or take over sponsorship of an employment Visa at this time. This is a hybrid position requiring three days in office per week in one of our hub locations (Philadelphia, PA; Cedar Rapids, IA; Denver, CO). Relocation assistance will not be provided for this position." So we have Pay (salary range) and Schedule (hybrid, three days in office per week). Also maybe Benefits? Not mentioned besides relocation assistance not provided, annual bonus eligibility. That could be considered Benefits (annual bonus). But the instruction: "never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless the posting actually states them." We have Pay (salary range) and Schedule (hybrid three days in office). Benefits: annual bonus eligibility could be considered a benefit. Also maybe "Relocation assistance will not be provided" is a negative but still a benefit mention. We could include Benefits section with mention of annual bonus eligibility. However we need to avoid filler like "commensurate with experience". The posting says "typically eligible for an Annual Bonus based on the Company Bonus Plan/Individual Performance and is at the Company’s discretion." That's specific enough. Thus we can have: - About the role (intro paragraph) - Responsibilities (list) - Qualifications (maybe split into Requirements and Preferred Qualifications? But we have both Qualifications and Preferred Qualifications headings. We could make Requirements for the mandatory qualifications, and Preferred Qualifications for the preferred. Or we could combine under Qualifications and have a subheading? But we only allowed headings list; we could have both Requirements and Qualifications sections. However the posting uses "Qualifications" for mandatory and "Preferred Qualifications" for preferred. So we can map: Requirements: the mandatory qualifications list (the big list). Qualifications: maybe we could treat as "Qualifications" for the mandatory? But we already used Requirements. Let's decide: Use Requirements for mandatory qualifications, and Qualifications for preferred qualifications? Or vice versa. The instruction says we can use those headings; we just need to include sections when posting has real specific content. So we can have both Requirements and Qualifications sections. Thus:

  Requirements

  with the mandatory qualifications list (the long list). Use
  • for each.

    Qualifications

    with the preferred qualifications list. Then Skills: The posting does not have a separate Skills section; many of the qualifications are skills. But we could treat some as Skills? However we already have Requirements and Qualifications covering them. Adding Skills might be thin/duplicate. Better to omit Skills if not distinct. Benefits: we have annual bonus eligibility. Also maybe mention of "Annual Bonus". We'll include Benefits section with that. Pay: salary range. Schedule: hybrid position requiring three days in office per week. We also have Working Conditions (office environment, occasional travel, work outside normal business hours). Could we put under Benefits? Not really. Could we put under Schedule? Not schedule. Could we put under Requirements? Not. Could we create a separate section? Not allowed headings. Could we omit? It's substantive but not covered by allowed headings. The instruction says to use those headings; we could incorporate working conditions into Benefits or Schedule? Not ideal. Could we put under Responsibilities? No. Could we put under About the role? Not. Maybe we can treat "Working Conditions" as part of Benefits? Not really. Could we treat as part of Schedule? Not. Given the instruction to prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones, we could omit Working Conditions if not fitting headings. However it's substantive. But maybe we can incorporate into Benefits as "Work outside of normal business hours may be required; occasional travel". That's more like working conditions not benefits. But we could still include under Benefits as "Work outside of normal business hours may be required; occasional travel". Might be okay. Alternatively we could create a "Schedule" section that includes hybrid and also mention of occasional travel and after-hours work? Not exactly schedule. Better to keep Benefits as annual bonus eligibility, and maybe add note about work outside normal business hours and occasional travel as part of Benefits? It's a stretch. Given the instruction to preserve ALL substantive information, we should not drop it. So we need to find a way to include it within allowed headings. Perhaps we can put it under "Requirements" as a requirement? Not really. Could be under "Qualifications"? Not. Maybe we can treat "Working Conditions" as a separate section using

    Working Conditions

    but the instruction says use headings e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. It doesn't forbid other headings, but says "Use

    for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It implies those are the expected ones, but maybe we can still use others? The instruction: "Use

    for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It suggests we should use those headings for sections. It doesn't explicitly forbid other headings, but to be safe we should stick to those. Thus we need to fit Working Conditions somewhere. Could we incorporate into "Responsibilities"? Not appropriate. Could we incorporate into "About