1 / 20

Everything we know. For You

Everything we know. For You. Norse Consulting Amanda Allen Scott Becker Max Colaner Johna Johns Christine Kohrs Ann Steward Terri Stickels. Objectives. Evaluation of the Taleo system Ease of job search and application process Response time from the recruiter

oke
Télécharger la présentation

Everything we know. For You

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Everything we know. For You Norse Consulting Amanda Allen Scott Becker Max Colaner JohnaJohns Christine Kohrs Ann Steward Terri Stickels

  2. Objectives • Evaluation of the Taleosystem • Ease of job search and application process • Response time from the recruiter • Interaction with the recruiter (if any)

  3. Evaluation Process Data collected • Applicant • Date Applied • Requisition number • Position title • Location • Start time • End time • Number of clicks • Feelings • Communication

  4. Application Process • Applied for 1-2 jobs per week beginning October 3rd through November 6th • Minimum of 12 per person • Total of 89 jobs • Locations • Drake • University Hospital • West Chester • UC Health Business Center

  5. Initial visit to website • “Job Search” • Tab location • Out of way, scroll down to find it • Tab wording • Overlooked tab because of excessive words • “My Account Options” • Font size and color are not easily discernible • Does not lead to profile creation • “Access My Profile” • Font size and location • 7.5 font! • Scroll down screen in the right side margin

  6. Uploading resume • Expect ease and convenience • Auto-transfer function • Incorrectly transfers information • Work Experience/School information • Refused information • Would not accept prospective date of graduation • Accommodate range of resume formats – or specify otherwise

  7. Getting to the search page • Search pages options: • There are two options that take us through 2 or 3 pages. • Effectiveness: • Both routes are long and not direct.

  8. Search options • There are many options that we can choose from to search for jobs, but the advanced options do not work properly. • The search box is not user friendly and hard to navigate.

  9. Positives • We like that all priority jobs are listed first. • Taleo is used with some of your competitors so this is not new to applicants in the medical field.

  10. Job titles • Job titles are inconsistent within the same locations and throughout different locations. • Job titles need to be user friendly, it is hard to tell what a job is by the title.

  11. Unclear communication expectations • We expected to receive an additional email, and be notified when we were no longer under consideration, instead it was required for applicants to log in the UC Health website to find this information out. • Although we asked to received a rejection letter when we were no longer under consideration, we did not receive that email.

  12. Screen shot

  13. Unclear status titles/labels • We were uncertain in what each Submission status meant, and the differences in them. • For example, “Application received,” and “Reviewing Resume.” Even though these status can be clicked on, the only description is under “no longer under consideration.”

  14. Length of time • As of November 14th, jobs applied for as far back as October 3rd are still in the “reviewing resume” phase. • We feel as if six weeks to not have an answer either way is lengthy, especially for these more “entry level” positions.

  15. External comparisons • The hospitals we compared: • The Christ Hospital • Good Samaritan Hospital • Mercy • St. Elizabeth • Tri Health

  16. Internal comparisons by location

  17. Internal comparison • Submission status: application received, reviewing resume, no longer under consideration • Inactive (no longer accepting job submissions): 28 positions for submission statues with application received and reviewing resume • University Hospital: Application Received 70.21%, Reviewing Resume 17.02%, No longer under consideration 12.77%

  18. Internal comparison cont… • UC Business Center: Application Received 18.18%, Reviewing Resume 18.18%, No longer under consideration 63.64% • West Chester: Application Received 11.11%, Reviewing Resume 0, No longer under consideration 88.89% • Drake: Application Received 36.36%, Reviewing Resume 0, No longer under consideration 63.64%

  19. External comparison • St Elizabeth (2), Christ Hospital, Tri Health, Mercy (2), Good Sam • Positives from other sites: Gave jobs in alphabetical order, overall layout (req number, job type, department name, and location), user friendly, communication (received email after applying for position and once positions have been filled), uploading resume, gave better job descriptions and requirements for positions. • Negatives: asking for additional information such as social security number, test was required to apply for a position

  20. Terri

More Related