Why applicant tracking systems are broken by design

Summary

The article analyzes the structural problems with applicant tracking systems (ATS), highlighting misaligned incentives, compliance-driven purchases, and the challenges of building a better product in a market that doesn't prioritize user experience. It suggests that the economics of ATS pricing and the focus on enterprise deals hinder innovation and perpetuate a broken hiring experience.

Key Takeaways

1. Applicant tracking systems are structurally broken due to misaligned incentives, lazy buyers, and a lack of competition on product quality.
2. HR technology purchases are often driven by legal and compliance requirements rather than user experience or ROI.
3. Building recruiting products is a trap because founders must choose between building something recruiters love and winning enterprise deals.

Statement Breakdown

• Claimed Facts: 50% of statements the article presents as facts
• Opinions: 30% of statements classified as editorial or subjective
• Claims: 20% of statements surfaced for additional reader evaluation

Credibility & Bias Reasoning

Credibility assessment: The article provides a well-reasoned analysis of the applicant tracking system (ATS) market, drawing from the author's experience and observations. It includes specific examples and references to industry trends. However, some claims are based on personal experience and may not be universally applicable.

Bias assessment: Critique of HR Tech Industry. The article is critical of the HR technology industry, particularly applicant tracking systems (ATS). It highlights the misalignment of incentives, the focus on compliance over user experience, and the challenges faced by founders trying to build better recruiting products. The author's perspective is shaped by their experience building an ATS and observing the market dynamics.

Note: Be aware that some claims are based on the author's experience and may not represent the entire ATS market.

Credibility flag: Contextualize Claims

Claimed Facts (7)

• This is presented as a factual cost.
• This is presented as a factual cost.
• This is a direct quote from NYC.gov regarding a specific law.
• This is a statement of when certain ATS platforms were launched.
• This is a description of the typical pricing model and market dynamics.
• This is a statement of a past event.
• This is a statement of the author's opinion on the difficulty and cost of switching ATS systems.

Opinions (7)

• This is a subjective feeling about the HR technology field.
• This is a subjective assessment of the quality of HR technology.
• This is a generalization about Enterprise SaaS and HR technology.
• This is a subjective assessment of Ashby and Gem.
• This is a cynical view of the purpose of certain software.
• This is a subjective assumption about the motivations of buyers.
• This is a subjective assessment of the capabilities of tools.

Claims (6)

• This is an exaggeration and generalization of a common experience.
• This is a broad generalization and difficult to verify.
• Calling something "vaporware" is a subjective and potentially unfair assessment.
• This is a generalization and may not be true for all recruiters.
• This is a vague and unsubstantiated claim about the impact of bad design.
• This is a vague and unsubstantiated claim about the difficulty of building an ATS.

Key Sources

• Paul Copplestone — e/postgres
• nyc.gov — Official website of New York City
• Author — Article Author
• Colm Tuite — Twitter User
• Brian Lovin — Twitter User