Why has the average time-to-fill for Aya Healthcare's allied health positions increased from 14 to 21 days since implementing the new applicant tracking system?

Introduction

The increase in average time-to-fill for Aya Healthcare's allied health positions from 14 to 21 days since implementing the new applicant tracking system (ATS) is a critical issue that demands immediate attention. This metric directly impacts our ability to place healthcare professionals efficiently, affecting both our business performance and our ability to meet the needs of healthcare facilities. I'll approach this problem systematically, focusing on identifying the root cause, validating hypotheses, and developing both short-term and long-term solutions.

Step 1

Clarifying Questions (3 minutes)

• Looking at the timing, I'm thinking the new ATS might be directly related to this increase. Has there been any significant change in the system's functionality or user interface that could be impacting the recruitment process?

Why it matters: This helps us determine if the ATS itself is the primary factor or if other changes coincided with its implementation. Expected answer: Yes, there have been changes in the workflow and interface. Impact on approach: If confirmed, we'll focus more on system-specific issues and user adaptation.

• Considering user segments, I'm wondering if this increase is uniform across all allied health positions or if certain specialties are more affected. Can you provide a breakdown of time-to-fill by specialty before and after the ATS implementation?

Why it matters: This will help us identify if the issue is systemic or specific to certain job categories. Expected answer: The increase varies across specialties, with some more affected than others. Impact on approach: If true, we'll investigate why certain specialties are more impacted and tailor our solutions accordingly.

• Thinking about the recruitment funnel, I'm curious about where the bottleneck might be occurring. Has there been any change in the number of applications received, time to screen applications, or time to schedule interviews since the new ATS was implemented?

Why it matters: This will help pinpoint which stage of the recruitment process is most affected. Expected answer: There's been a decrease in the number of applications received and an increase in screening time. Impact on approach: We'll focus on improving the application submission process and optimizing screening efficiency.

• Considering user feedback, I'm wondering about the recruiter and hiring manager experience with the new ATS. Have we collected any feedback or satisfaction scores from these key users since the implementation?

Why it matters: User experience issues could be contributing to the increased time-to-fill. Expected answer: Initial feedback indicates some frustration with the new system's learning curve. Impact on approach: We'll prioritize user training and system optimization based on feedback.