Tips to improve impact and demonstrate your ROI
Let’s take a look at what these metrics might look like on paper as statements of commercial impact.
Performance metric: Cost per hire
How it should read: Reduced cost per hire by 50%, from £900 to £450, in 12 months, saving £3.1m. (You could also quote how this compares with the benchmark cost per hire for your sector, using benchmark data from sources such as PWC Saratoga.)
Performance metric: Time to hire
How it should read: Reduced time to hire in income-generating roles by 9 days, from 55 to 46, increasing revenue by 1.2%. (Some roles generate income and the longer the role is vacant, the less income the company generates.)
Performance metric: Volumes of internal vs external hires
How it should read: How it should read: Reduced external hires by 25%, reducing cost per hire by 35% (£1.8m) and increasing internal mobility by 110%. Attrition reduced by 2.5% as a result, saving £2.3m per year in recruitment spend. (If you increase internal recruitment you are probably reducing attrition as well, since more staff are developing their careers with the company.)
Performance metric: Quality and success of hires
How it should read: Improved first year retention by 150%, from 30% to 45%, reducing cost of recruitment by £1.3m per year.
Performance metric: Volumes and costs of direct hires vs agency hires
How it should read: Reduced agency hire rates from 55% to 20%, reducing cost per hire from £900 to £350 in 2 years, saving £3.8m per year.
Performance metric: Fee structure of the PSL
How it should read: Reduced average agency fees from 25% to 18% in one year, saving £2.3m per year whilst maintaining shortlist success rates and time to hire. (It is relatively easy to cut costs with suppliers but you have to show that the business did not suffer as a result.)
Performance metric: Processing capacity of the recruitment team
How it should read: Improved hires per recruiter from 90 to 120 per annum, reducing cost per hire from £400 to £360, saving £1.8m per year. (This is the number of hires that each internal recruiter handles per year. Benchmarks are also available for this figure from sources such as Hackett.)
Performance metric: Efficiency of the starters process
How it should read: Reduced data processing times of new starters by 50% from 70 minutes to 35 minutes, reducing cost per hire by 5%, saving £800k pa.
Performance metric: Relevance of shortlisted candidates
How it should read: Improved offer ratios of shortlisted candidates from 1 in 5 to 1 in 3, reducing cost per hire by £80, saving £1.8m.
Performance metric: Advertising spend
How it should read: Redesigned careers website, increasing direct application by 80% and reducing media costs by 60%, saving £850k pa.