Reading this question, I wondered why this style of "contributions" in CVs is popular in different places. It's not popular where I live and I always wonder what the readers of those CVs in other places gain from it.
Example sentences might read:
- Developed software for warehouse transfers saving 15$ million in costs.
- Improved packaging algorithm to save thousands of man-hours of manual labor.
As a software developer, my experience is that we are not free agents that roam the company and pick projects based on what we perceive needs improvement. There is a Boss that delegates his wishes to a leader (Product Owner/TeamLead/Manager) that in turn makes developers on the team implement this project.
Even when the project is done, there is a non-zero chance that the project is canned for reasons absolutely outside the influence of developers or even leaders.
The success of the project itself is rarely a product of good or bad coding or generally speaking good or bad software development practices. There are too many factors that have nothing to do with the technicalities that influence the outcome heavily.
Also, individual contributions result in different outcomes based on company size. It's easy to save a huge corporate entity millions. You could probably do that buying cheaper toilet paper for a month. But lets assume it was done writing code. Writing the same code for a smaller company might only save a lot less. It was still the same quality of work. Whether the in-house software was distributed to 1.000.000 people or just 10 is nothing the developer could influence. In this example, even a developer half as good would have a bigger "contribution" by working at a bigger company.
Last but not least... I don't even know my contribution in exact quantities. Nobody tells me how much money my software just saved. Why would they, chances are I would immediately ask for a raise if I saw those numbers.
So back to my question. As a reader of CVs like that, what do you gain from reading such a CV? If you see somebody "saved the company a million dollars by doing X", how could you weight that against another candidate, assuming that neither of them actually has the power to make the decisions about X that lead to that savings?