The blog post below (a bit out of date now, but still on topic) is a table of some of the differences:

http://tinyurl.com/3xa788

Typically the underlying data model of a CRM system will be more flexible than ATS, notably in tracking and modeling outside organizations, and the metrics that Dave defined are everyday measures within recruitment applications. CRM also supports outbound phone work- still the essence of the search business, while call center features are very rare in ATS. Just the nomenclature says it all; recruiting is only partially concerned with ‘applicants’.

What corporations need is recruiting software, with which applicants can be tracked. Applicant tracking software: not so useful for recruiting.

Are you saying that a CRM system is a better solution because that approach automates recruiting as a continuum, an ATS automating what amounts to a series of event driven transactions?

Or are you saying ATS-generated metrics - source of hire, time to fill and so on - are not so good for recruiting because they are quantitative measures dealing with outputs versus what Dave suggests is a better way to measure the qualitative things that generates more meaningful data?

I’m confused. What do you mean?

– Dave, thanks for your reply and comment.

To your last point that competitive pressures compel US staffing departments to get and apply a better metrics model implies that those departments are still going to be in a reactive mode, responding to the progressive moves of the staffing leaders, playing catch-up.

At what point do we accept the reality that very few organizations can conceive of new applications for metrics and analytics that in themselves result in competitive advantage? At what point do the front-runners stop looking back to see if the laggards are catching up?

Even though the new metrics you describe lend themselves to enabling process improvements it is still easier to apply them to measure performance and blame the rest on “talent shortages,” or “req. loads” or “recruiter training” or “hiring managers,” — if you know what I mean :-).

Metrics rarely change mindsets or behaviors over night. More often they are used to reaffirm institutionalized beliefs about what recruiting is and what systems do slowing the process of developing competitive advantage rather than accelerating its acquisition as you imply would happen in your argument.

I’m sorry, Dave. From where I sit I don’t see what you describe happening on a scale that would benefit the majority of staffing organizations who, despite the best of intentions, are too busy treading water to be changing bathing costumes. That doesn’t make it right. It just makes it what is.

That said, I completely agree with you when you say that most org’s view recruiting as an expense and not an investment, which lends itself more to overhead metrics. This is changing, albeit slowly.

I do take some issue with your argument that this discussion is not relevant for the vast majority of US staffing departments - while they may not have a proactive recruiting model today, one of their talent competitors might (and could be having a field day pulling top talent from their organization in the process). So from that perspective, understanding what leading companies are measuring and striving towards, some of which may be directly affecting them, is incredibly relevant.

Candidate identified
Unknown level of interest/have not contacted
Connection established
Not interested
Contacted
Willing to listen to opportunities
Willing to refer others
Interested in opportunities
Passed on to hiring team
In the hiring cycle for a specific opportunity
Hired
Rejected (would hire in future)
Rejected (do not hire)
Declined

What you have there is the pipeline metrics for just about every progressive third party recruiting firm out there.

What corporations need is recruiting software, with whcih applicants can be tracked. Applicant tracking software: not so useful for recruiting.

Even if they have the right software, they need the right mindset- some do, many dont. That’s where Dave may be ahead of his time.

Since many large corps are also federal contractors, and the absurd OFCCP rule is about as anti-recruiting as can be, 2006-2007 have been dead years as firms have come to grips with it.