Active Recruitment or Outsourced/Non-active ?

Size of workforce ? Hourly, Pro, Interim ?

Features per Dollar ?

Hassle per Dollar ?

Market Share only ?

Innovation ?

Reputation ?

Share / Stake holder Performance ?

There are at least 5 possible vendors for every dimension of the question.

The best ATS is one you know how to use, that lets you move data in and out, and is popular with your fellow users.

‘These software companies are barely profitable ‘

TA systems alone are a billion dollar business in 2007-2008, so what of the whole TM universe ? Peoplesoft alone makes money by the pallet, and I know many firms in the biz with very pleasing margins.

‘none can assume the price of innovation: slower acceptance and lost revenue in the short term.’

Is that something to do with HR software? That’s the essence of business decisions, anywhere at any time.

‘None have real recruiting practitioners on their product design teams,’

Is that supposed to hurt? Client and prospect driven design saves all kinds of time, and who needs the filter anyway ? Does Boeing have a lot of airline executives on staff ? I’m pretty sure they listen very, very carefully to what they have to say, but today, engineers and project people can talk to customers via IM, email, skype, VoIP, WebEx, and on and on. Software can and is baked to order and it’s finished when the vendor is.

‘and none of these companies are able to attract top software-design talent.’

I’ll stake our best players against anyone. You want top talent, anywhere, anytime, for any reason ? Pay for it, and you will have it.

Lots of firms cry poor mouth and blame weak design on lack of subject expertise and say they cant afford to innovate and say they can only get medium talent….

True for some….hardly for most or all….

Re: Dan Hilbert

I love the approach and the results speak for themselves.

‘At Valero, our technology guidelines mandate that all talent software meet the following criteria: communicate through XML, have a published API (application programming interface) and meet WSA (Web Services Architectural) standards.’

It’s important to note the codicil; Dan has access to resources who can help him with an API, XML, and Web Services. Valero makes the investment in skills that leverage whatever solutions they select- making individual selection decisions much less risky and more rewarding. Note that all three options may not be needed for a given solution- for example, realtime access to raw data is often the only thing needed for a complete integration.

This fits right down the line with Dr. Sullivan’s #12 suggestion-

‘Hire a pro. ~~~~~~~ You might just find that the service you have been paying $100,000 for could have been built internally for $10,000.’

Thats the most radical thing I’ve read in a long time on ERE.

As an implementation consultant, my job is to paint the honest picture and assist the company in determining show-stopper features versus actual return. The clients need to continue to dream. ATS vendors need to be profitable and to have a platform that is flexible, but a solid CRM. Hey, a shot at Goldmine and ACT! — As a user, you discover the limits soon after installing the CD.

When the War for Talent is primarily waged over the Internet, major corporations will succeed or fail as a result of recruiting technology. Sounds too strong? I don’t believe this point can be made strongly enough. To that end, talent departments need talent software blueprints and guidelines.

Companies need the ability to rapidly implement best-of-breed technology components into a unified solution. Companies that do will gain significant, strategic competitive advantages in the War for Talent. When a superior piece of talent technology hits the market, companies must have the ability to implement that component quickly, in a plug-and-play type fashion, with little custom programming.

For example, when an advanced CRM tool hits the market, replacing an entire ATS is not a solution. Existing users, managers and vendors would be up in arms if they were required to completely learn a new ATS every time a better CRM, candidate mining, resume extraction or manager-self-service feature was implemented.

At Valero, our technology guidelines mandate that all talent software meet the following criteria: communicate through XML, have a published API (application programming interface) and meet WSA (Web Services Architectural) standards. To the non-technical this means that all Internet-based talent software components, regardless of the vendor, can be quickly assembled together into a single talent solution.

These guidelines ensure that we as users are not slave to single vendor offerings. This also creates recruiting technology component competition so that the vendors are compelled to keep their components up to state-of-the-art technology standards.

Regardless of ATS and talent product vendor claims, run fast and far away unless they will guarantee in writing that their products meet these simple three criteria. If they don?t, you and your department will end-up with non-integrated, disparate pieces of outdated technology in two years while your industry competitors are using their state-of-the-art plug-and-play technology to bury you and your company in the War for Talent.

As a Staffing Consultant I have used several ATS solutions and, not surprisingly, found the same to be true for those situations. Where the ATS was fully implemented and utilized by all involved, productivity and quality were dramatically higher (and far easier to achieve) than at the companies that used a mixture of conventional patch-work applications to fill in where the ATS was not utilized.

I know I would prefer my next consulting assignment to be at a company that has fully embraced an ATS. Which ATS I don’t really care, they all pretty much do the same thing. Or as they used to say back at the dawn of the Digital Age, GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out.