Applicant Management Systems: Three Reasons Why the Wrong Software is Often Chosen
Robindro Ullah explains why users of applicant management software are often so dissatisfied - and how to do it better.
Applicant management systems (BMS), or also called Applicant Tracking System (ATS), do not always have the best reputation everywhere. Why this could be the case, how to avoid the decision for an unsuitable software, so that you can benefit from applicant management tools in the future, is explained by recruiting expert Robindro Ullah from Trendence.
It could be called a love-hate relationship. Personnel managers and applicant management systems don't seem to get along easily. Personnel managers who would tick the box for "satisfied with the applicant management system" are hard to find. Even though I can't back up this impression here with a representative survey - in my perception, hardly any other topic is discussed more critically. For example, when it comes to the famous Candidate Experience, i.e., the usability in the application process.
Definition applicant management system (BMS):
The BMS is an IT system that supports the entire personnel recruitment process. The support is directed both towards the company and towards the candidates. In this context, the overall process starts with the declaration of a vacancy or human resource planning and ends with the onboarding of a person.
The very general and comprehensive definition is not always relevant for the system providers. In all cases, the overall process is not represented by only one system. And of course, there are providers who focus on sub-processes in which they demonstrate certain strengths. Not least for this reason, the search for a suitable BMS is arbitrarily complex.
Why is there dissatisfaction with applicant management systems?
It is always easy to blame others, especially when the other side is software. Quickly the software is not good enough or is outdated or brings the wrong mindset. In this blame game, it is unfortunately quickly forgotten that the company usually chose the software and is essentially to blame for its own misery.
Choosing software is a very complex process and often begins directly with a misunderstanding. You are not looking for a software solution - but a software as a tool. In other words: You should not expect a BMS to do your job. The task of software is to support you in your job. This little mistake in system selection can have a great effect, for example, when it comes to data maintenance. Software is often only as good as the people who use it.
With this little preamble and classification of the current situation, we come to three reasons that will surely cause you some dissatisfaction when it comes to everyday work with an applicant management system.
1. The choice falls on the applicant management system, whose provider already supplies the remaining systems
If the choice of the applicant management system is made with this simple logic, dissatisfaction is almost pre-programmed. However, in the recruiting area, you will quickly be faced with the requirement to maintain a certain system poverty in the company. What is meant by this is that the decision is often made according to the HR core system.
Many companies try to get all HR systems from one source to keep the interfaces and coordination complexity as low as possible. However understandable this is from the point of view of the IT department, it can be assumed that a decision made in this way will cause annoyance. Because an HR core system is only selected in the rarest cases with a view to the quality of the associated ATS module.
Let's move on to the second guarantee for high dissatisfaction:
2. The own recruiting strategy is not clarified or not present
How will I recruit in the coming years? Do I have a passive approach with a focus on placing job advertisements? Do I follow the approach of setting up a department for direct approach in the not too distant future? Do I work with many personnel consultants? Do I have a pool-oriented recruiting?
In connection with the recruiting strategy, many questions can be raised that may be relevant for the choice of the applicant management system. All systems have their specific strengths and weaknesses, which you should put over your recruiting strategy. So, you should first become clear about how you want to recruit in the future in order to be able to select a system that is capable of supporting you optimally.
The last guarantee for dissatisfaction is almost a classic:
3. Following the decision for an applicant management system, the recruiting is restructured
That sounds of course somewhat absurd and is usually not done directly after the introduction of the system. However, even with a few months delay, this can already lead to great annoyance. Usually, a detailed examination of the processes and organizational structures has not been carried out before the system was chosen. Sometimes, the system brings certain processes into question. To decide only afterwards for a sourcing team or to hand over parts into a peer-recruiting construct will overstrain most systems or lead to extensive "rebuilding work". Usually, the system is configured for a specific organization and specific processes. If I change these significantly afterwards, the system will no longer support me optimally.
Especially popular in such cases is the sentence: "All it needs is an additional field." Often we recruiters are not aware of the complexity of a software and therefore find it hard to estimate the costs it triggers. Especially here, dissatisfaction arises which is fuelled by the fact that one might find turnkey systems on the market that represent the new situation much better than the cumbersome adjusted BMS.
Conclusion
It cannot be denied that systems exist on the market that can be classified as generally weaker than others. However, the reasons mentioned also make clear that poor preparation and unfulfilled expectations in the HR sector are also certain to lead to disappointment. Therefore, it is worth setting up selection projects in order to gain certainty about what you want. In addition, it is worth testing systems based on your own list of requirements.
Robindro Ullah ist Geschäftsführer der Trendence Institut GmbH und seit vielen Jahren als Berater, Autor, Speaker und Blogger aktiv. Der HR Influencer gehört zu den Initiatoren des HR TEC Talks sowie dem Podcasts „HR TEC TALK der Podcast“ und „Zielgruppengerecht“. Zuvor war er in leitenden Funktionen bei der Deutschen Bahn und dem Heidenheimer Technologiekonzern Voith beschäftigt.