Time to fill (when a candidate accepts an
offer) and time to start have long been considered
key staffing performance measures. These metrics
provide a time frame of how long an organization's
hiring process is and give hiring managers a realistic
expectation of how long it will take to fill an
open position or to have a new employee start.
The challenge, as with any metric, lies in defining
what is being measured and time to fill/time to
start is no exception.
According to the 2002 Staffing Metrics Study:
Time to Fill/Time to Start conducted by the
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and
the Employment Management Association (ERA), while
both time to fill/time to start metrics are important
to HR professionals, the results highlight a need
to clarify and define the formulas used.
Survey respondents were almost evenly divided on
the question of how similar or different these metrics
are, indicating that some HR professionals are using
these metrics interchangeably while others see a
distinct difference between the two. Respondents
in small organizations were more likely than those
in large organizations to view these two measures
as being similar.
HR professionals responding to the survey considered
time to fill the more important measure than time
to start: 38% said they track time to fill only
compared with 6% who said they track time to start
only. The emphasis on time to fill is not surprising
since hiring managers need a realistic estimate
of how long it would take to fill their positions.
Another 25% said they track both measures while
nearly one-third said they do not calcuate either
metric. One reason for this latter finding is the
lack of a clear-cut definition on how to calculate
these metrics.
Data collection and analytical tools for tracking
recruiting costs have become easier as the technology
has become more available. The SHRM/ERA survey examined
whether organizations have an automated process
(such as an applicant tracking system) to track
either metric. There was almost an exact split among
respondents46% said they did not have such
a process while 54% said they did. This split could
indicate a shift toward using technology to track
these numbers, thereby freeing up time for HR professionals
to analyze their impact on the organization.
The survey also noted that the use of an applicant
tracking system increased as the size of the organization
increased, with 39% of small organizations, 40%
of medium organizations, and 63% of large organizations
reporting they had such technology. A simple explanation
for this could be money: large organizations would
have larger budgets to be able to afford a system.
More than two-thirds of survey respondents considered
time to fill and time to start most valuable if
tracked annually. Tracking these metrics quarterly
was a close second. Here again, organizational size
played a role. Large organizations were likely to
place an extremely high value on tracking the metrics
quarterly compared with medium and small organizations.
Due to the sheer volume of hiring in large organizations,
it is probably more useful to keep track of performance
on a quarterly, instead of annual, basis. Tracking
metrics quarterly in a small organization doesn't
seem useful because of the small number of hiresthe
numbers won't mean very much.
Respondents indicated that tracking metrics by
department would also be helpful, as would tracking
metrics by job level. This makes sense given that
the time to fill or time to start in R&D might be
very different from Customer Service, for example.
Similarly, the time to fill or time to start would
be much longer for an R&D director as opposed to
an administrative assistant.
Although 25% of respondents reported actually tracking
both metrics, it is worth noting that 53% said they
saw value in tracking both metrics. Thirty-three
percent said they saw value in tracking time to
fill only while just 7% said they saw value only
in time to start. Another 7% said they saw value
in not tracking either one of these metrics, which
reinforces their usefulness. Respondents in large
organizations were more likely to track time to
fill only while those in small organizations were
more likely to track both time to fill and time
to start.
The top three reasons cited by respondents who
saw value in tracking both metrics were to evaluate
or improve the staffing process; they measure different
things and are important; and for budget reasons.
This is an indicator that more information is needed
on how to calculate time to fill/time to start metrics
that produce meaningful and reliable results. At
the other end of the spectrum, it is possible that
those respondents who did not see value in tracking
either metric feel that way because there is no
straightforward definition for either one. This
feeling might change if such a definition emerges.
To understand why there is little consensus in
calculating metrics, let's focus on the time to
fill equation. Consider how respondents answered
when asked what they use as the first day
a position is open in calculating time to fill:
39% of respondents stated they used the first day
of posting (internal or external), 32% chose the
day final approval of the requisition was granted,
12% picked the day the position was vacated, 7%
said they use the day the requisition was written.
Four percent use some other measure such as the
date HR received the requisition. (Eight percent
said they don't calculate time to fill.)
When respondents were asked what they use as the
last day a position is open, 43% chose the day a
job is orally accepted, 24% said the actual start
date of the employee, 15% used the day written acceptance
is received, 7% said the day the offer is extended,
and 4% use some other factor.
Not only is there wide variation in how variables
are defined but the size of the organization also
affected the responses. For example, respondents
in small organizations were significantly more likely
to choose the day a position was vacated as the
first day while respondents from large organizations
were significantly more likely to choose the first
day of posting. This disparity could be due to the
fact that open positions in small organizations
are usually learned about by word of mouth compared
with large organizations, which may observe more
formal procedures in filling a vacancy.
The overall survey results show that while there
are many HR professionals who value and are using
time to fill and time to start metrics, these are
probably the more difficult metrics to calculate
precisely because there is no standard definition
of the variables involved. Their value, like any
human capital metric, is in setting a benchmark
for the company to evaluate itself against company
goals and objectives, as well as industry standards.
The full report on time to fill/time to start metrics
is available at the SHRM
Web site.
Corinne Marasco is Associate Editor for Chemical
& Engineering News, the newsmagazine of the
American Chemical Society, specializing in career
and employment topics.