Response time
Shortlisting applications
One advert brings in dozens of applications, of which a minority match the client's brief. Reading them all takes hours, and while that happens the good profiles are approached by other firms. The consultant ends up reading the first twenty and skimming the rest.
An illustrative example, not client work
Who it is for
Recruitment firms, staffing agencies, HR consultancies
What the problem costs
In a recruitment firm, time to presentation is the product: the first to put forward a relevant profile places the candidate and bills the fee. Sorting time is therefore revenue at stake, not an administrative task.
The process today
- Reading applications in the order they arrived
- Judging them by feel against the client's brief
- Late contact with the profiles kept
- Writing a summary per candidate presented, by hand
- Applications left unhandled, with no reply to the candidate
The approach we take
An assistant sets each application against the criteria written with the client, ranks by how well it matches, shows for each one what fits and what is missing, and prepares a summary per candidate. The consultant reads the summaries, decides who to call, and keeps the whole of the interview and the assessment. No application is set aside without a human seeing the reason.
How it works
4 steps, and a human who decides at the end.
Criteria
The client's brief is turned into written, explicit criteria.
Comparison
Each application is set against the criteria, with what fits and what is missing.
Summary
A short sheet per candidate, quoting the elements in the file.
Decision
The consultant chooses who to call. The interview and the assessment stay entirely theirs.
Before, after
What changes in your teams' day.
Today
Sorting depends on the time available. Good profiles are approached elsewhere while you read.
With the solution
Applications are ranked with their reason as they arrive. The consultant spends their time on the phone, where it is worth something.
Expected benefits
- Time to first contact gets shorter, and that is what decides the placement
- Every rejection carries a written reason, which is also a non-discrimination requirement
- Applications get an answer, including the ones not taken forward
- The client's criteria are written before the search, which cuts off-target presentations
No figure is shown: a gain is not promised before it has been measured at your company.
Prerequisites and limits
- Automated sorting of applications is a regulated and sensitive subject: the criteria have to be professional, written and auditable, and a human approves every rejection. That framework is set at framing, before anything is built
- A vague brief produces vague sorting. Turning it into explicit criteria is the real work
- Assessing the candidate is not automated and must not be: only the reading order changes
Systems involved
- Applicant tracking system
- Job boards
Related service
AI strategy & advisory
See the service
Contact
Does this case look like yours?
Describe your version of the problem. We will tell you what can be handled, what cannot, and what it takes.
Tell us about your project