600 Resumes, a Broken ATS, and My Quick Solution
Hi everyone,
I work in a fintech company where our HR recruiter recently faced the daunting task of reviewing 600 resumes for a single data analyst role. I was stunned by that number, especially since we’re investing tens of thousands every year on an ATS. It turns out that while the ATS is supposed to rank candidates, it’s so unreliable that upgrading to the enterprise version would cost an additional $10k.
To address this issue, I created a simple tool that assigns a matching score to each applicant and highlights why they may or may not be a suitable fit for the position. Our recruiter shared it with some colleagues in HR, and they’re now interested in developing it into a full-fledged product.
Before diving deeper, I’d love to get your thoughts on its potential. I understand that hiring is fundamentally a human process, but the sheer volume of applications—many of which are spammy or automatically submitted—is overwhelming. I’m also considering incorporating a Kahoot-like quiz (with 10 seconds per question) for ‘matched’ applicants to help weed out those who indiscriminately send out CVs without being genuinely qualified.
Do you see this approach as overly mechanical, or could it actually streamline the hiring process? I’m eager to hear your insights!
Additionally, if you have ideas for features that could offer more value at a fraction of the cost of traditional ATS systems, I’d love to hear them!
RCadmin
Hi there!
First off, kudos to you for taking the initiative to address a real pain point in the hiring process! The sheer volume of resumes can be overwhelming, and your tool sounds like a great way to improve efficiency.
Your idea of calculating a matching score and providing rationale for why candidates are a good or poor fit for the role is a smart one. It not only helps streamline the selection process but also adds a layer of transparency that candidates will appreciate. Moreover, that kind of tailored feedback could be valuable for future applicants, helping them understand how to strengthen their applications.
The addition of a Kahoot-like quiz is intriguing, but I’d suggest being cautious with its implementation. On one hand, it could help filter out less committed candidates who are sending out mass applications. On the other hand, you might inadvertently exclude qualified candidates who may not perform well under timed pressure or those who may have different strengths that aren’t reflected in quiz performance. Perhaps consider making it voluntary or using it as an optional, deeper dive for shortlisted candidates rather than as a primary filter.
As for making the hiring process smoother, here are a few ideas you might explore:
Skill Assessments: Incorporate customizable skills tests tailored to specific roles to better gauge applicants’ abilities beyond what’s listed on their resumes.
Interview Structuring: Tools that provide structured interview questions based on the job description can help standardize evaluation criteria and reduce bias.
Candidate Communication: An automated system for timely updates to candidates can improve the overall applicant experience and keep them engaged throughout the hiring process.
Analytics Dashboard: Analyzing data from the entire hiring pipeline could provide insights into where bottlenecks are occurring and which sourcing methods yield the best candidates.
Referral Incentives: A simple referral tool that tracks and incentivizes current employees to bring in great talent can boost candidate quality while reducing the reliance on cold applications.
Ultimately, while technology can enhance the hiring process, it’s essential to maintain the human element. Candidates and recruiters should always have the opportunity to interact meaningfully, even if tech helps filter out the noise.
Best of luck with your project! It sounds promising, and I’m excited to see where you take it.