Begin with a focused evidence review. Map vacancies, channels, applications, assessment progression, withdrawals, offers, acceptances and starts. Agree the meaning of each measure and check whether the underlying records are complete enough to support comparison. Define a relevant application against the agreed entry criteria, not a recruiter’s general impression. Keep applications, candidates and vacancies distinct so that duplicate applications or different campaign sizes do not distort the picture.
Combine the process data with a sample of job advertisements, role profiles, assessment materials and candidate communications. Speak with hiring managers and, where appropriate, candidates and recent starters. Include unsuccessful and withdrawn candidates where feasible; a picture built only from successful hires misses important barriers.
For each decision, distinguish three findings: evidence available, evidence missing and evidence conflicting. A large application pool with low relevant progression suggests a different intervention from strong assessment results followed by repeated offer declines. Investigate plausible explanations before increasing spend or changing standards.
Prioritise issues by their effect on the workforce need, the strength of evidence, candidate impact and the organisation’s ability to act. Immediate accessibility, misleading-claim or fairness concerns require attention regardless of their position in the funnel.
