Time-to-fill is a worthless statistic. It is the statistic of a staff function that wants to measure how long its takes to do its job. We need a statistic that reflects what we are: a business that measures how effectively we meet our clients needs.
I propose "strike zone." For each req (or, if we become good enough to get off of reqs, the Client Expectations Profile), negotiate for a period of time which will be optimal for the client and which adheres to the laws of physics.
Client: "Need them tomorrow!"
Consultant (used to be called "Recruiter"): "Great! And if you can find any service on earth that can deliver that sort of service then I recommend as your consultant that you use them. But assuming that the laws of physics govern our search then here is what I am prepared to agree to for delivery."
This is the "strike zone." Get the candidate hired and installed during those dates and you have executed to the business's need. Anything after that (or even before), is sub-optimal and means that your "time budgeting" was based on inaccurate assumptions.
Like any good business you will use the opportunity of that "ball" (as in, "not a strike") to examine exactly what assumptions were unconsidered, inappropriate or just plain wrong. Profile the experience and the process, and make sure it doesn't happen again. Use the data to frame future client expectations.
A consultant that delivers more strikes can easily be measured as more effective to the client's needs than one who pitches a lot of balls.
True, this has nothing to do with “Quality of Hire.” But Time-to-Fill doesn’t either. And “Strike Zone” gets rid of those maddening fluxuations in TTF statistics due to opportunity hires and the search that can’t end.
If the client becomes a dolt and can’t seem to make up their mind, renegotiate the strike zone. This is an effective way to communicate to them that they are hurting their own business:
Consultant: “You know Jim, you said that the business needed this position filled by the week of April 1. At this rate we are not going to make that. Here are the three reasons why. And here are the challenges your business faces if we don’t get Talent in here during that time. We either need to renegotiate the strike zone and accept the consequences, or accelerate this so we can both make our numbers.”
That’s recruiting talking like a business, like a consultant and a sales person. That is what we need. Not some useless statistic that gets us mired in blame shifting and one-off analysis.
Dump Time to Fill. Make this the first strike you throw.
Great post! This is a great idea that definitely needs to be examined.
I agree that time to fill is definitely a statistic that is meaningless on its own - especially as an amalgamated organizational performance statistic. A few questions:
1. A company might not embrace a strike zone because they fear that client expectations could become very subjective. What would you say to this objection?
2. In your model, it would seem that historical time-to-fill by position could be a valuable data point for the Consultant/Recruiter negotiating a "strike zone." Agree?
3. Here's a complex question - how could you measure opportunity cost with your "strike zone" or a "strike zone variance" statistic to come up with hard data that not only motivates recruiters, but makes sense to executives?
Posted by: Dave Lefkow | March 13, 2005 at 08:04 PM