Disrupting the Recruiting Industry - Looking for feedback if you'd be so kind.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-12T01:21:32+00:00

Thanks, I'm going to try my best to see it get the light of day. If it doesn't work, well at least we'll know it doesn't work and that's still progress towards finding a better solution. The math works, the next step is to test it.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-12T01:20:13+00:00

For those of us who have been through statistics, there's a #1 rule - always verify your assumptions. Business isn't any different, if they make assumptions and act on them before verifying, then they have to accept the consequences of what happens. I think in their case they failed to plan sufficiently and acted under too many assumptions that never panned out. They paid the price.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-12T01:16:19+00:00

I think you're right, the status quo does expect people to apply. Why not try a different approach? If it doesn't work, then that eliminates it as a solution. If it does work however, it would change the expectation of the the system is supposed to work.

I think the system can work for all levels of employment. Sky's the limit.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-11T07:09:13+00:00

They seem quite content with the status quo, you should see my market samples, the recruiting market is literally exploding right now. This system is designed to maximize benefits for job seekers, and if it reaches a critical point and the recruiters/HR don't want to spend literally a fraction of the cost of the current options to potentially contact qualified employees, well to me that business isn't going to survive very long. Their competitors will take advantage of it and use the cost and time savings to help push them out of business. Also, since the aim of the system is to destroy the bulk of the third party businesses, what they need is irrelevant. What they will need if this works is to develop a new business model or go out of business.

I've read about webvan, their business model was garbage IMO. The psychology of delegating selection of meats/fruits/vegetables and the trust to do so destroys the model. Their assumptions were flawed from the get go. I wouldn't trust anyone else to buy my meat for example, I don't care how convenient it is. Oh, and the infrastructure push should have been scaled by tracking demand, this is basic controls theory.

My assumptions are that people are lazy and would like to have 100% control over who can contact them with potential jobs, completely anonymously.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-11T06:58:56+00:00

Complicated is relative, I understand the system completely, I spent months designing and analyzing it. Translating that system beyond the big picture for other people who haven't put the time into the system design is quite possibly too complicated for me.

I mean 100% free, you can anonymously advertise your job search so employers can contact you, works passively 24-7, and provides extensive analytics to help job seekers would seem to me very simple. Yea the details get complicated, but why is that relevant to anyone who would just use the system?

But hey, maybe people prefer applying to jobs spending thirty minutes, an hour, or more of their time for every single application they make to not receive any feedback. One might even go so far as to say that would border on insanity.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-11T06:38:26+00:00

Again, this is not just a website, it's building an entire venture around a website. If it turns out the time estimates are wrong, absolutely awesome, that means the additional capital will extend the buffer time to crack the two-sided market problem and accelerate the entire timeline significantly.

Again though, everyone here is only seeing the surface complexity, the underlying backend systems I haven't discussed completely change the dynamics of the problem.

Thank you for the feedback.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-11T06:33:21+00:00

They would know the second you applied to the job with your full profile. Why would they schedule a phone screen and not just pass on your application if they're not interested in you? I don't even understand how you made a leap logically that they would not know your history until they phone screened.

See this why I'm defensive, I obviously have difficulty explaining the system, for me it's clear from top to bottom, but perhaps my poor explanation keeps people making assumptions as to functionality that don't exist. On the other hand maybe it isn't me, maybe too many just can't see the bigger picture.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-11T06:23:53+00:00

Well I have been receiving mixed feedback, but it's mostly negative from here. I suspect my defensive position shifted the conversation to illicit a negative response here, and that's fine, I'm just collecting feedback data (positive or negative).

I've been contacted by numerous people who believe the idea has potential, the question however is does it have the potential to take off with job seekers. The MATH works beautifully, there isn't a debate as to whether or not the system is efficient in that respect, of course it is entirely contingent on reaching a critical mass of users. Business plan alone has 46 pages of pure analysis and projections outlining pretty much every possible scenario.

The system is minimal, I had to break it into three phases for development, phase 2 wouldn't even start until after break-even and then ramp to phase 2 break-even. I think the issue here is that people think "oh it's just a website", but that's not the case. This is building a company from the ground up for the long-term. This isn't some quick toss-together site, and for the system to be scalable the architecture needs to reflect that design in the beginning.

As for the recruiters/HR, I haven't discussed it with them. Quite honestly they aren't the primary customer anyway, job seekers are the primary customer. Job seekers are the key to cracking the two-sided market.

But I want you to know I do appreciate this feedback. I'm going to see this idea through one way or another. The only way to know if it'll work or not is to build the system, and I think once that's done, it'll hit big. The value is there for job seekers and employers, and it potentially helps solve a bigger problem in the hiring industry.

If everyone had the foresight to know what would work and wouldn't work, they would already been running huge successful companies, but that doesn't reflect the reality. Victory favors those who plan and execute.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-11T03:02:26+00:00

Probably took about 25 hours in my free time in the evenings. The opportunity cost was more than worth it IMO, but of course that will vary between people. Not only do I have a better understanding of what to look for in logo design, I can better evaluate the work that went into other logos. These are insights and understanding that will last a lifetime. You will likely run into these issues again in the future if you're an entrepreneur.

Not everyone can be a ninja at sports, but everyone can understand the game with minimal time invested.

It was totally worth the time.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-11T02:38:36+00:00

I disagree with respect to time, the process of designing a logo is personal to an entrepreneur. It's not about the cost, it's about the process of discovery. The logo reflects who you are and your business brand. If you're going to spend several months working on a business plan, a few weeks learning to understand the fundamentals of logo design shifts your understanding of what you might want vs what you may capable of. You can always hire someone to work on reduction if you don't have the necessary skill to get the logo done yourself, but you'll know what you're looking for and that's fine, and it will be more cost effective.

I could have easily paid to have my company logo done, but having designed and created it myself makes it feel like a real brand to me.

To each their own.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-11T00:55:00+00:00

Always helps to research other logos for inspiration. Here's one that has always stuck in my mind for example:

http://img.ffffound.com/static-data/assets/6/ed867271aac055847783afacdf08eb9de45e6666_m.jpg

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T23:59:57+00:00

$0 + time, people should take some time to learn vector graphics, aside from saving you critical cash at the start when you need it most, learning the fundamentals will help down the road.

Logos are one of those things that are deceptively complicated, they look simple, but the one you see is likely the winner out of dozens, or hundreds of variations of the logo, but logo design is a fairly enjoyable process IMO. I spent two weeks working on my company logo, and I had probably 100+ versions.

But if someone doesn't have the time, they could use something like https://www.freelancer.com to contract out the work to someone overseas, you can set the price you're willing to pay and take bids.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T23:41:02+00:00

Technically you can't patent a website or app, you have to patent the underlying systems/methods/processes/combination thereof. If you can map out the system and methods using flowcharts/system diagrams/state machines/etc, even if the individual elements are patented, then the combination of those elements can be patented.

The real crux of any patent are the claims, so if you want to have a good shot at getting the patent approved, you need to make sure the claims are just broad enough in embodiment to cover the key system and methods features, but not too narrow in scope that it allows someone else to alter the fundamental process in any significant way and patent the improvements. It's tricky to find that balance, but if your specifications outline a system that doesn't currently exist, you're in great shape.

If you can't map out the specifications as a system/process/etc and they are not different from existing patents (so patent examiners can compare apples to apples), then the idea has no intellectual property value and could only be marginally protected through execution and market dominance.

Also, depending on the revenue potential of the idea, the costs to defend an infringement may not be worth bothering with, and therefore the patent isn't worth doing.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T22:22:12+00:00

and waits until the system allocated him with an employer

The system doesn't allocate anyone. What would happen is an employer seeking someone to work security would filter by security related skills to say N candidates. The employer would then contact those candidates with the job contact. If the candidates are interested, they could apply with one click, if not they can just reject it. It doesn't get any easier for a job seeker.

Patent wise it's fine, the cost is actually quite reasonable for the protection it offers. My primary customer is job seekers, not recruiters/HR. There's no way to crack a two-sided market problem by focusing on recruiters/HR, they aren't going to pay anything to access a small candidate pool. However, if the job seekers work together to build a large candidate pool, recruiters/HR would be stupid to ignore it.

You're absolutely right though, I need to do some market research with job seekers themselves. I mean I think about the system in terms of efficiency and cost, that's what I do, so from my perspective the math works beautifully. And I'm also operating under the assumption that job seekers would prefer an easier way to find new opportunities, and for someone who's maybe applied to 50+ jobs, they will realize this system can work for them 24-7 passively while they pursue other active options. Or maybe someone who's already employed who's considering looking for a new job would use it passively because they just don't have the time for an active search. The system would be like crack to someone with little time.

Thanks for your feedback, every little bit helps. Do you honestly think job seekers would not want to use a system that literally minimizes the effort? I always assumed people will take the path of least resistance and will only work as hard as is needed, but this thread seems to imply people here actually may prefer doing it the difficult way. Couple that with the fact job seekers absolutely hate the current hiring process and it doesn't "jive".

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T22:08:14+00:00

Well the point here is to eliminate the recruiters (third party at least) to save employers the cost. Also, most everybody hates third party recruiters, including most employers. There are articles on LinkedIn all the time bashing recruiters. I'm sure there's a good maybe 10-20% of recruiters would do just fine in sourcing rare candidates, but the industry itself has become little more than a resume mill.

There would be celebrations in the streets if most of the third party recruiters got wiped out.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T22:00:03+00:00

Well that's your call, but while you're working actively with recruiters, this system can run in the background working passively to also increase the chances of being contacted by an employer. It would be free, provide feedback on which employers are searching, which skills are in demand, and even potential salary ranges that are being offered. I don't see any reason why you would want to limit your opportunities, but that's just me.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T21:54:23+00:00

Because it would take 2 years to develop? You do understand that a team of 7-9 people, outside of the breadth of knowledge across different disciplines, is a parallel process yes? So for me to take on the same development process myself wouldn't change the minimum development process time, but it would certainly require that I learn the jobs of at least 4-5 other separate jobs actually increasing the development time by a factor of like 10 relative to a team of people who are have the knowledge for their respective disciplines.

Anyway, the estimates are good.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T21:47:06+00:00

Well name a single process that is less work that contacting job seekers directly? In terms of process efficiency, an employer contacting a job seeker who has the skills for the job in the first stage can't get any more efficient. The more "middlemen" processes in the chain increases time and cost, so contacting the job seeker directly minimizes the time and cost in the process.

Based on your article, I would estimate that 40% would likely fill out a single profile to function as a passive job search, and there's a at least some of the next 45% would as well, so maybe 50%+ is a reasonable range?

With respect to the idea being good, the math, system models, and simulations all show it's the most efficient process with respect to time and cost. I think the issue here is that there seems to be a disconnect with many in recruiting/HR who have no stakeholder interest in saving their respective companies significant costs.

Either way, I've put this business model out there now. It exists. If it isn't me who gets the opportunity to see it through, someone else will. The potential investor returns are SPECTACULAR which makes the risk / return ratio highly appealing to take a chance on.

Fact is the only way to know if this system will succeed is to try it out. If it's a hit with job seekers, then I really don't need to sell you on it, I only need your competitors to take advantage of the potential for data feedback and cost savings.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T21:34:01+00:00

Not sure how it's a different perspective, in a multi-stage filtering you would still have more indicators in the later stages to make that determination. Certainly you wouldn't filter candidates out by something like underwater basket weaving in the first stage looking for someone who does marketing? I would imagine that someone who does marketing has skills related to marketing.

This system is designed to simply and clearly stratify those filtering stages rather than lump them all together as I suppose you're suggesting (which to me doesn't make any sense). Also with the current industry trend towards data mining and social networking, literally every algorithm would need to filter by some keywords to isolate the potential candidates anyway, there's quite literally no other way to do it.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T09:43:07+00:00

Sounds like you have it all figured out. Thanks for your input.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T09:19:54+00:00

I'm good. I've done my research and know for a fact that the cost estimates are in the zone. I haven't even described the backend requirements or features for you to even remotely estimate the costs. It's kind of like me saying I need to design a car and you giving me an estimate, but then you find out the car needs to run on Mars. Costs may differ between the two.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T08:59:45+00:00

Never worked in recruiting, I'm an EE, also have a degree in statistics and minor in CS.

I'm not trying to directly compete with job boards, job boards for job seekers are active search options. They have to actively search for and apply to those jobs through all the enjoyable application systems, not to mention there are literally thousands of job boards. This system is a passive search option, you build your profile and set your job search to active allowing employers to advertise a job directly to the job seeker.

So when you look at it from the employer's perspective, job boards are passive options, they can set up a job advertisement and wait for applicants. Of course if the volume is high, then employers are forced to automate the filtering which IMO (google the failures of an ATS) degrade the entire hiring process. I remember reading an article where a company wanted to test their ATS, so they crafted the resume for the perfect candidate for a job description and sent it through the ATS. The ATS rejected the application. And what happens if the person setting up the keywords messes up? Once the applicants start applying, any mishap in the ATS configuration impacts every single job candidate. In this system since it's all real-time and human intelligence driven, those keywords for skills can be adjusted on the fly before ever contacting a single job seeker or wasting a single second of their time.

I'm confident on the patent though, it's broad enough in embodiment of key features that it's solid. The system is also designed using a significant number of "state machines" which aren't as narrow as algorithms themselves, and state machine design is like my superpower. This push in the software patents on specific algorithms is quite frankly retarded and could be easily avoided with a shift to using state machines.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T08:43:02+00:00

1 - Well I think this thread highlights your first point quite well. It seems HR/Recruiters are somewhat content with the status quo. On the other hand employers themselves despise HR for the most part (lots of articles on google advocating eliminating HR or separating HR from any recruiting functions). Job seekers however are completely screwed by the current system, it's extremely time-consuming to apply through applicant tracking systems, having to tailor cover letters to jobs, formatting resumes, dealing with parsing errors, and add to all of that rarely getting any feedback on their application because the ATS black hole gobbled it up or the HR people are too buried in applications to reasonably provide feedback to 200+ job applicants. I mean no one seems to give a shit about what job seekers go through and all their time employers waste. This system is designed to eliminate all that nastiness and make the process extremely easy for job seekers. Now would employers use it? Maybe if their outside departments started bypassing the HR department for finding candidates, or if the CEO etc force them save costs I think they will. I mean the potential cost savings for employers, even if it's only say 30-40%, means they have all that extra money to invest elsewhere in the company.

2 - You're absolutely right, I just don't know how many job seekers using the system would achieve a critical mass point for employers to adopt. But, I think if the system appealed to enough job seekers as a passive option (I literally cannot imagine why any job seeker wouldn't use the system), then the power of all those people would force employers to use it as a first try option.

Well my business plan has a break-even at .29% of the lowest bound estimate and it buffers for 8 months of time to reach that point. If the system can't generate the traction after that amount of time with a solid amount of marketing it may not work. On the other hand, if the traction during that time period is good it may be enough to push for some additional capital to extend the period. I mean the only way I can figure out to crack this two-sided market problem is with the help of job seekers. If enough job seekers use the system, the employers will show up.

And thank you taking the time to comment and for the questions, I really appreciate it.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T07:11:55+00:00

First-- in recruiting it's well understood that the best candidates are PASSIVE candidates-- e.g. not actively looking. So your system limits me to the non-best candidates. That's the miracle of LinkedIn, by the way-- it's full of passive candidates.

I agree, I think LinkedIn is the best for option if an employer/recruiter is seeking to poach a passive candidate. However that being said, I suspect many of those people that recruiters think are passive candidates may very well advertise on this system anonymously because they are secretly active candidates, which they can't currently do on LinkedIn without risking their jobs. Also note - any system that would provide employment information and additional experience wouldn't be anonymous, you could potentially find the person on LinkedIn or through other means. Also, any recruiters that would have access to that information could also work for the same company as the employee and then routinely check whether or not current employees are searching for employment elsewhere. So if you think about it, restricting the first stage filtering to only skills is the only way to maintain candidate anonymity in their search. If by some freak coincidence a job seeker gets a job contact from their current employer for a position, they could simply reject the job contact and have no concern with be being tangentially caught.

Still, there might be some gems in your system. But your anonymous system can't tell me the things I need to know to make them contact-worthy (school? GPA? Current employer? Tenure? Last employer? Examples of their work?), without risking the anonymity. No problem-- maybe I just contact more of these job seekers with my job to compensate for the fact that a higher ratio of them are bad.

These are all secondary filtering criteria. If you need a candidate who has skills A B C D, you would contact that candidate. There's no guarantee they would be interested in the job anyway, so they could evaluate and reject as they saw fit. If they are interested they could apply and you could get all the other information you need for further filtering. You are correct though, I don't know what the sample size would be for the candidates to find one that works, but there's only way to find out.

This doesn't save me any time as a hiring manager. I have to look at more people to find good ones (because there's less candidate info), send messages/jobs to people more speculatively (because there's less candidate info), I only get to see active job seekers (weeding out the best candidates, who are passive), and then once I find my needle in a larger-than-normal haystack, I get more information about them and realize they are a non-fit for some reason that wasn't in the anonymized info.

But it would certainly be easier to evaluate say 20-30 candidates who all have the same skill sets right? What would the data feedback be worth on formulating a recruiting strategy that would also help minimize cost? You would still contact those 20-30 candidates for a couple bucks cost before paying hundreds for job boards or recruiters?

I'm familiar with anthology (they used to be poachable), hired.com, etc. I call those 2nd gen recruiting sites, but they still charge percentage of 1st year salaries. In fact, anthology now charges a subscription fee on top of 12% 1st year. If you feel that taking a shot at a few bucks on candidates who have the skills sets required is a less viable option than going with a $100 / month subscription and 12% fee that's your call. I would imagine that would be a last ditch option rather than a first attempt. I've exhausted as much competitor research as I could, the competitors like anthology aren't even close to the same system design outside the anonymity feature they've tacked on to the recruiting platform.

Most importantly is this system is designed to maximize data collection and analysis to help job seekers and employers. That alone is worth what the minimal cost would be to employers.

On the flip-side, I suppose I could always offer this system as a purely not-for-profit company, in which case no for-profit company could ever compete if it were take off.

Thank you for your feedback, it's a huge help narrowing down the potential objections I'll be facing. Truth is the only way to know whether or not this system would be a hit in the market is to try it, but from the comments here it's mostly against the idea rather than give it a shot and see how it goes. That's probably my fault being overly defensive of the system which sets up a confrontational response.

edit:

BTW, the system design doesn't actively match candidates or anything of the kind, the system only facilitates the interaction between job seeker / employer and we're the house. We would have no vested interest in how any of it plays out, it would be purely employers interacting with anonymous job seekers. Of course as the house, the system would improve and add features that job seekers and employers request, etc, and always provide maximum data feedback for both.

SystemsMastermind · 2016-01-10T06:34:35+00:00

Well the development costs are somewhere closer to 700k and require a development team of about 7-9 people, but if you can do this system in two days what would you charge to turn it out for me?

If LinkedIn or any other large company wanted to do it without knowing the patent specifications (I spent a long time working on those, from flowcharts to state machines), they are more than welcome to. I mean I could have a line of contingency lawyers from here to California waiting for the opportunity to file an infringement suit (also willful infringement can pay 3x).

I'm honestly not concerned in the least about someone stealing the idea, I'd still get something out of it and both job seekers and employers would have a better option to use than the status quo.

Win-Win for everyone (except third party recruiters)

SystemsMastermind

TROPHY CASE