On 2/23/07, Gus Harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> That was an interesting example.  But, did anyone get some real, solid
> after-the-fact cost figures of what the cost was to improve the existing
> process...not just in initial implementation but indexing time, software
> upgrades over several years...etc.

unfortunately i left the company not too long after the study was
done. I do know that they implemented it and it greatly improved the
work capabilities. I don't remember if I mentioned how many resumes
were on hand but it was in the neighborhood of 250,000 and each resume
was more like a CV in that most were several pages long. The database
contained only keywords so it was necessary for the recruiters to
review the actual resume. In addition the applicants the company was
seeking generally had to have more than 10 years experience, be
certified/licensed/permitted/whatever in their profession and in many
cases have specific experience with certain processes and equipment.

not locating a paper resume meant that we couldn't offer an interview,
they had to have reviewed the resume to make sure that the resume did
match the job req

>
> Did the benefit produce more income or at least pay for the
> implementation including hardware, software, labor time,...projected
> cost...etc.?  I guess I'm thinking a lot these days like those
> "non-records management" types I answer to.  The first word always out
> of their mouth is "cost!" :-)
>
income was not a factor since this involved recruiting, but I believed
it decreased the processing time greatly since they were no longer
having to spend time searching for a missing hardcopy resume

-- 
Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
Richmond, Va

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance