I'd like to take a look at how companies design contract staffing programs that encourage minimum standards for quality.
Third Party firms consider the VMS revolution (Vendor Management System) the bane of their existence. On the one hand, a Vendor list limits competition, as only a select number of vendors are allowed to place candidates. On the other hand, the systems by which companies measure their vendors virtually guarantee that finding quality candidates is not a priority.
VMS systems (which are poorly names as to say it, you have to say, Vendor Management System systems) are put in place to turn staffing into an accounting function. In theory, this is a great practice, because it requires companies to focus on all of a companies reqs, but also on "hiring quality.''
In reality, the nature of staffing makes it impossible to judge performance accurately. Here are some of the metrics I've encountered.
1) Number of Submittals to open positions -
2) Ratio of interviews to Submittals
3) Ratio of Offers to Interview
4) Number of Hires to Offer
5) Number of Early Terminations
These metrics were the most common - though others were used. The goal of each was to create statistics upon which companies could compare companies based on their performance. The metrics listed above are easy to track, easy to use as comparison, and devoid of any context. Placing 10 desktop techs is rated with 10 submittals and 10 interviews would give a company a good rank, while a company that found two of the world's foremost Java programmers with 35 interviews would be ranked poorly.
Third Party recruiters are no dummies - they know what it takes to compete, and so they often find a niche they fit into and focus on that particular niche, sending only token resumes to other positions. In a blind process, the recruiting companies don't know what other companies are searching for, so they often compete head to head in the easy-to-fill, low value positions. Business Analysts, Desktop Techs, entry-level Programmers, and QA analysts are hot positions to fill. Senior programmers, ERP specialists, and Database developers are tough to find.
Third Party Recruiters therefore focus on the easy jobs, leaving the difficult positions alone because they know the margin is lower (VMS systems deflate top rates), the search more difficult, and the payoff in the vendor metrics minor. Finding a top SAP ABAP developer once every four years simply won't keep a public company in business.
In this way, companies that utilize traditional vendor metrics are unintentionally (at least we hope) driving down the quality of their top contractors.
Vendor contracts often have clauses that discuss the intentions of
the vendor to only put "quality" candidates in front of a client. This
always struck me as a funny thing to put into a legal contract, because
"quality" is such a funny word - it's entirely subjective, and has no
solid legal description. In fact, I would argue that vendor lists, by their very metrics,
dissuade Third Party Recruiters from attempting to place the best
candidates in front of a client.
Comments