Being able to work side-by-side with managers and HR advisors and communicate with applicants throughout staffng processes gave us the opportunity to observe how users behave in the real world. And there were a few things that we didn’t expect.
#1We thought: we would have diffculties getting applicants to use the platform.
Turns out: finding managers willing to use an experimental platform was the main challenge when it came to scaling up.
#2We thought: allowing for broad access to the platform would be the optimal choice for partner departments.
Turns out: there was sometimes a hesitancy to share access even between branches within the same department unless an internal financial arrangement was made.
#3We thought: we had a good understanding of how diverse the HR culture was within the public service.
Turns out: the extent of diversity in operational models, in combination with the high HR personnel turnover, created some design challenges, even for as adaptable a platform as ours.
#4We thought: high-performing talent, especially applicants with competing offers, would have almost zero tolerance for delays in the hiring process.
Turns out: if applicants had a sense of being valued and believed the process was well-designed (fair, clear and progressing), they were more understanding and more willing to wait it out. (This was especially true if they connected with the manager, either by reading the profile or in the interview.)
#5We thought: having a classified position and confirmation from both managers and HR advisors represented a level of certainess that the advertised job processes would be completed, not cancelled.
Turns out: cancellations still happened more often than we expected. Most were due to changing funding levels and shifting operational requirements, while some were due to changes in management. Not surprisingly, faster processes had better completion rates.
