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 respondents—46% 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 hires—the 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.