Notes: INTERVIEW MGMT. MODULE

FS - INTERVIEW MODULE

04-06-03

Kartavya
Abhi
Nagwekar
Inder

Global Recruiter | Func. Specs

Interview Mgmt. Module

Ref: Pg 16/18 of my yesterday’s note

On this page of my yesterday’s note, I have described Stage II (of HELP!) – using which, a CPO/recruiter can graphically super-impose the “Gross Annual or monthly Compensation” being offered (or being demanded by Candidate) on the Company’s own internal compensation-profile, of PEER-GROUP (executives within the Company having same designation, as the Candidate).

The idea is to ensure that the CPO/Recruiter does not end up offering a compensation figure to the Candidate, which would dramatically upset the internal “apple-cart”!

Whereas all recruitment managers are painfully aware that they have to offer, may be, 20%/30% MORE to outside Candidates, as compared to a COMPARABLE executive already working within the organization, they (the recruitment managers), are not so sure, that they do not end-up offering 50%–70% more to an outside Candidate! (This is sure to invite a “revolt” amongst Comparable existing employees!)

But this “lapse” – and consequent “revolt” – are far more frequent than you would imagine! You may also end-up losing some of those unhappy insiders. At least, if no one quits then the morale goes down!

What is really bad (very bad!) is that the CPO causes such an anomaly / such a disruption / such a revolt – out of sheer ignorance / lack of facts & figures.

However, despite having/seeing on his Computer screen a Compensation Profile of PEER-GROUP:

(Graph Illustration)

Y-axis: No. of Employees

X-axis: Gross Salary (Rs./month)

Distribution curve shown
Peer Group = MANAGERS, Population = 49
Salary offered = 32K/month to Candidate
Range: 25K → 32K → 38K → 40K

He (the recruiter) still goes ahead & offers a monthly gross salary of Rs. 32K (or even 38K) to the Candidate,

then, it is a “conscious / well-considered decision.”

Now, he (CPO) knows:

What he is doing
What consequences can follow

· → who will get terribly upset

→ who will get mildly upset

→ how he is going to handle each existing employee’s grievance.

· Now, armed with facts (viz: Internal Compensation Profile of PEER-GROUP), he is well-equipped (information-wise) to defend his decision.

· He is much better-placed to explain to his existing disgruntled employees, the “RATIONALE” behind his decision. He is not caught on the “wrong foot” or taken-by-surprise.

· In L&T, I used to prepare (plot) these graphs manually & update these, once-a-year (i.e., during annual increment time) – especially in case of Managerial staff.

· But that was in 1977–79, long before PCs arrived on the scene!

· Now, I suppose leading/large organized companies must be getting these GRAPHS, as a byproduct of their SALARY/PAYROLL SOFTWARE.

· Or, I suppose, they could, if they wish – in case they are using any SALARY/PAYROLL software.
It is possible that it may not have “occurred” to them, that using such byproduct graphs, during interview/negotiations, could save them a lot of unnecessary “headache” later on.

· Once they start using these graphs, they may wonder, how they ever managed without these!

· Not only during negotiating salary with a prospective Candidate, the HR managers will start using these graphs during:

· → annual rewards/increments

→ promotions

→ transfers (to other Divisions/Offices etc.)

→ Union negotiations

→ Compensation-Restructuring exercises

→ formulation of VRS

· etc. etc.

· Now you can see that this feature/functionality will re-surface, again & again, in:

· → Manpower Requisition Module (Ad-Compose)

→ Interview Mgmt. Module

→ Employee Mgmt. Module

→ Organization Module

· The HR mgr / the recruitment mgr / the CPO / the user dept., all will want to PULL these graphs at different times, in different modules, for different purposes.

· And they will expect (rightfully) that…

→ at a given point of time, SAME/IDENTICAL graph appears in all modules (when pulled)

→ there is some “in-built” mechanism, whereby all graphs get automatically updated, on an ongoing basis, everytime

a new person joins
an existing person leaves (resignation/retirement/transfer/death)
monthly salary of any person changes due to any reason (increment/promotion/transfer etc.)
a person’s designation changes (meaning, his data gets transferred to a different PEER-group)

So, automatic generation/maintenance of COMPENSATION-PROFILE GRAPHS (for all PEER-groups within a web-subscriber Co.) is an important feature of Global Recruiter.

This is what will set Global Recruiter apart from any software/webservice available in the market.

One added advantage (a byproduct?),

is that, we will generate

THE GENERAL POPULATION PROFILE

by simply aggregating the INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBERS’ POPULATION PROFILES.

So, if 123 Companies subscribe to our webservice and, they have, between them:

23,949 Managers
869 Gen. Mgrs.
84 V.P.s
etc. etc.

we (our software), will consolidate all individual salary-data and generate the GENERAL (or rather COMMON) PROFILE.

Neither we nor any subscriber will get to see/know which specific executive of which specific company gets what salary. (We can never allow this under any circumstances!)

But the aggregation/consolidation (PEER-group wise), benefits ALL subscribers while maintaining complete ANONYMITY of the contributing individuals & contributing companies.

Only the concerned Company will be able to see its own profile. Of course, they can superimpose their own profile onto the COMMON PROFILE and…

(Graph illustration at top)

Y-axis: No. of Executives

X-axis: Gross Salary (Rs./Month)

Peer Group: Managers
Company XYZ: 239 Executives
Common Graph: 5234 Executives

At present, I am considering PEER-GROUPS as those falling under same “DESIGNATION-LEVEL” (but actual designations, initials vary widely from company-to-company).

So, each subscriber company would need to “place” its existing executives, in one of our 9 designation-levels. Then only we can form PEER-GROUPS.

(Table below)

Gross Salary (Rs./Mth)	Subscriber Company	Customer
Srl. No.	Name of Executive	Actual Designation

If subscribers feel uneasy/uncomfortable making available such CONFIDENTIAL data to Global Recruiter, they may even drop the Name of Executive & leave it blank! (We are not interested in knowing that this data belongs to XYZ executive!)

If subscribers agree to make such data available (about their existing employees), we can form PEER-GROUPS:
→ Designation Level wise

→ Function wise

→ Age wise

→ Exp. Wise

→ Edu. Level wise

→ Posting City wise

etc. etc.

In return, subscriber can have a much wider choice of sub-sets (of Peer-groups) to compare. This ability of drilling down to a niche target group for comparison would become very valuable, when COMMON POOL contains, say, 300,000 executives – of which 60,000 are “Managers”!

Question:
How can we get Subscriber Companies to part with this sensitive data?

If we say, only those subscribers who submit data about their existing employees will get to see/view COMMON PROFILES,

— then will it work?

How can we be sure that a subscriber gives data for:

→ all of its employees

→ all “columns” in the table?

To fulfill our condition, he may simply furnish data about 2 managers (all columns filled) when he has 200 managers in employ,

OR
15 General Managers (only 1 column filled).

I don’t think, putting any no. of “conditions” will obtain “compliance.”

I feel, it is only the “self-interest” which will get compliance.

And that self-interest is,

→ being able to generate his own company’s (Peer group wise) salary profiles.

Without his making available this data for all his employees, these profiles cannot be generated (the profile will look horrible for 2 employees!).

And without these profiles, he can neither super-impose on COMMON PROFILE for comparison (understanding) purpose, nor can he take “Information based Intelligent decisions” (p. 4).

(Signature mark at bottom)

Inder
cc: Kartavya

cc: Abhi

cc: Nagwekar

Global Recruiter – Interview Management Module Functional Specifications

As per schedule prepared by you, you are supposed to hand over to Kartavya the Functional Specifications for this module by July 15th.

No doubt, you must have gone through my previous notes on this subject (Webservice). Folder #1 (Box file) is with Nagwekar & Folder #2/#3 are in second drawer of my table.

In addition to these, for your guidance, find 18 pages of my notes where I have commented on each output statement of OES – which is quite like an Interview Mgmt. System – except it was specifically designed for a placement firm.

What we want to come out with is for any Corporate web-subscriber who does recruitment for his own company.

So, a lot of OES statements are irrelevant for such a user.

He wants a simple system which permits him to track any vacancy at the 8 stages mentioned on p.3 of my enclosed comments.

The most important feature of this Interview Management Module is described in my notes dt. 19-12-2002 “Global Recruiter”, in which I have drawn many graphs & then commented on each.

This feature consists of:

Graphical Tracking of each assignment through various stages using MIMIC Diagram / Wizard, as in case of:
Load Dispatch Centre for Power
Train Movement on many tracks/stations
Refinery / Cement Plant flow chart
Several lifts going up/down/held-up on various floors of 100-story building
Assembly-line conveyor belts, etc.
Automatic ringing of Alarm Bells (emails) when a process is held up at any stage beyond target date (specified by initiator). Red light blinking on MIMIC diagram to indicate where exactly there is a hold-up & who precisely is responsible.

Your functional specs will be incomplete without UI in form of MIMIC Diagram & output statements.

FROM OES, what “output statements” can/should be considered for our Webservice Module-3 INTERVIEW MANAGEMENT?

#1 – Monthly Shopping Basket Summary (for a given period)

This is irrelevant.
But the Central Personnel Officer (CPO) would want to see some statement which tells him:

How many “Manpower Requests” received from different locations/units during any period (or cumulatively) for his “approval”
How many he “approved”
How many he “rejected” (with reason for rejection)

→ Location-wise / Unit-wise data to be compiled.

#2 – Shopping Basket Summary (URL Wise)

This is irrelevant.

#3 – Shopping Basket Summary (for a given period)

This is irrelevant.

#4 – Shopping Basket Designation-Level Wise

This is irrelevant.

#5 – Shopping Basket (Function-wise)

Irrelevant

#6 – Shopping Basket (Industry-wise)

Irrelevant

#7 – Shopping Basket (Client-wise)

Irrelevant

#8 – Shopping Basket (Consultant-wise)

Irrelevant

#9 – List of Inquiries for a given period

Consultant-wise
Location-wise
Function-wise
Vacancy-wise
City-wise
Country-wise
(→ Covered by my comments in Item #1)

#16 – No. of Inquiries remaining to be answered (Consultant-wise)

Something similar would be required in Global Recruiter where the Central Personnel Officer (CPO) or the Indenting Department Manager is able to see visually/graphically the stage-wise

rogress/status of each & every manpower request.

#17 – List of Inquiries which did not convert to an order

This is like Rejection/Disapproval of a departmental manpower request by the Approving Authority = CPO or even Head of Dept.

→ We should provide a column/field where CPO/Dept Head can record his Reasons for Disapproval.

#18 – Inquiry Status (Consultant-wise)

This would be covered by Visual Progress Chart, where stage-wise status is shown.

Is it likely that in an organization, several Recruitment Managers are handling different manpower requests received from different depts/locations? This is possible – in which case, Global Recruiter should have provision to monitor progress/status of each/every manpower request.

Dept/Location-wise (Initiator)
Recruitment Mgr-wise (who is handling)

#19 – Proposal → Irrelevant

#20 – Sales Order → Irrelevant

#21 – Project Plan for a Sales Order → Irrelevant

In Global Recruiter, I feel we should allot/permit the Initiator (end user dept. where vacancy exists) to fill in:

Manpower Request details
Project Plan details

Table Sketch:

Stages vs. Cumulative No. of Days Allowed (example):

Manpower Request
Approval
Advt. Release
Receipt of Applications
Shortlisting
Interviews
Appointment/Joining

By filling up such a Project Plan (as shown on preceding page), we are equating Initiator with an internal customer (of HR Dept).

The User Dept (Initiator) is in effect telling the Service Provider (HR Dept):

This is my requirement (Main Specs/Job Description/No. of Vacancies, etc.)
I give you a total of 60 days to fill this vacancy as per following Project Plan. I have also indicated no. of days for completing each activity, stage-wise.

Now, we may provide a provision wherein the HR Dept can superimpose its own version of Project Plan, in case it cannot meet the stipulations of client (User Dept).

Table Sketch (Stage-Wise Tracking):

Main Request
Approval
Advt. Release
Receipt of Applications
Shortlisting
Interviews
Apt/Join

→ HR Dept commitment superimposed on plan from Initiator (shown as different colored/marked boxes).

Perhaps we can consider allowing User Dept (Initiator) to indicate a “band of days” for each activity, instead of stipulating one/fixed date for an event (i.e., completion of activity).

So, in essence, the User Dept stipulates:

Earliest Starting Time (date) for an activity, and
Latest Completion Time (date) for that activity
(much as in case of PERT).

And, since in a recruitment process, all activities are sequential only, we are suggesting a Gantt Chart.

(Sketch of Gantt Chart showing sequential activities across days 3–10)

#22 – Project Variance for “Sales Order” (i.e., given Vacancy)

This statement is very relevant for a Global Recruiter. But whereas in OES it is a foundation of figures/numbers, in Global Recruiter we must convert it into a Graphical/Visual presentation, where there should be some method to highlight negative variance – i.e., by how many days is the project running behind schedule (the target dates for each stage).

I suppose visual indication of negative variances must be a standard feature of any good Project Planning Software package already available in the market. Only, most of these software are designed to take care of hundreds of activities, also “parallel” activities. Whereas for Global Recruiter, we need to deal with no more than 10–12 activities, all of which are sequential.

So, we need to re-invent the wheel & design something quite simple & light, depending upon the simplicity/complexity of concerned organization. (Allow addition/deletion of activities = customization).

We may provide 25 activities (all sequential?), out of which an Initiator can choose/select whatever are relevant to his organization & further relevant to this particular assignment.

#23 – Pending Order for a Consultant (Chronologically)

In Global Recruiter we will not distinguish/differentiate between an Inquiry and an Order. So my remarks for #18 apply.

#24 – Pending Order for a Consultant (Client-wise)

Although it is theoretically possible that one Recruitment Mgr. may handle manpower requests received from many different departments, we can ignore this statement/report in Global Recruiter.

#25 – Pending Order for a Consultant (Vacancy-Name wise)

(Triangle diagram showing relationship)

Indenting Depts. (User Depts)
Vacancy Names
Recruitment Managers (handling a given manpower request)

Since 2 different, identical vacancies from diff. user depts. would be a rare case, we should confine Global Recruiter reporting to only:

Indenting Dept-wise
Recruitment Mgr-wise

#26 – Pending Order for a Consultant (Est. Billing Value wise) → Irrelevant

#27 – Pending Order for a Client – Chronologically

(Flow diagram drawn)

Manpower Request → User Dept → Recruitment Mgr Concerned
This statement is relevant.

#28 – Pending Order for a Client – Consultant wise

(Flow diagram drawn)

Manpower Request → User Dept Concerned → Recruitment Mgr Concerned
(Same as #25).

#29 – Pending Order for a Client – Vacancy Name wise → Irrelevant

#30 – Pending Order for a Client (Est. Billing wise) → Irrelevant

#31 – Pending Status for a given period (Industry wise) → Irrelevant

#32 – Pending Status (Function wise) → Irrelevant

#33 – Pending Status (Desig. Level wise) → Irrelevant

#34. Load on a Consultant

We can ignore for Global Recruiter.

#35. Resumes remaining to be sent (Consultant-wise)

→ Irrelevant.

#36. Resumes sent-out

→ Irrelevant.

#37. Oneline Statement (for Consultant)

#38. Oneline Statement (for Client)

→ Irrelevant.

#39. Details of Prospective Candidate

—

#40. Advt. Details

At a later date (V 2.0?), when Ad-Compose permits sending advts. to print-media (e.g. Times of India), this statement would be required — not now.

For the time being, Ad-Compose screen will have check-boxes for uploading advts. on different JOBSITES only. It should be possible to view this screen any time later in case one forgets what JOBSITES he had ticked.

#41. Advt. Response (Client-wise) for a given period

Global Recruiter must have provision to display the no. of resumes received from each jobsite & for each job-vacant (Vacancy-name).

Client (User Dept.) & period is irrelevant.

#42. Advt. Response (Media-wise) for a given period

→ Same remarks as #41.

#43. Interview Call Sent-out for an Order / Manpower Request

This statement (or something similar) is very much required.

#44. Interview Schedule for Sales Order

Some similar statement is very much required.

In every such case, we don’t have to follow the exact format for Global Recruiter. What I mean is that some such statement would be needed.

#45. Interview Held Summary — Client-wise

If internal User Dept. (Initiator) has to be treated as an internal client, then he would want some feedback.

#46. Interview Held Summary

This summary is for Central Personnel Officer (CPO), who may want to see, at-a-glance, interview positions of all user depts.

#47. Follow-up details for an order of a given client

It is quite unlikely that CPO would see.

Continuing from previous page:

It is more likely that User Depts (i.e., clients) will follow up, not CPO.

However, a couple of cases where CPO may follow up with User Dept:

If resume-file (drafted of course) is sent to User Dept for vetting and it is still not returned to CPO duly rated.
If User Dept has not given/fixed interview dates & CPO has fixed interview schedule which User Dept has yet to approve/agree.

#48 – Follow-up with Candidate (for a given period)

Any recruitment dept. wants a facility (software) which enables the recruitment manager to:

Send a voicemail/email to shortlisted candidates.
Send “alert messages” (reminders) to candidates when a candidate-wise listing or vacancy-wise history shows no replies.
Track what replies have come from which candidates.
Track which candidates have confirmed they will attend interviews (as required) & which have declined (also giving a reason).
Make a phone call to a candidate.
Send an SMS to a candidate.

#49 – Client-wise expected date of joining

If user depts (initiators) are treated as internal clients, then they certainly want to know when selected candidates are likely to join (against their vacancies).

Assuming there are several internal clients, both CPO & these initiators should be able to “see” the dates on which different candidates have promised to join.

#50 – Details of compensation received for an order → Irrelevant

#51 – Compensation Details → Irrelevant

#52 – Compensation Details (as per format)

This is a very useful form. By providing this form, we should make it possible for the CPO (Central Personnel Officer) & the Initiator Dept Head to be able to see exactly what the basic salary for an offer is & how it translates into “Gross Compensation.”

We should also make a provision whereby CPO/Initiator dept can add/delete any particular elements of compensation which are unique/peculiar to their dept/company/location.

How can we “Convince/Persuade” CPO/Initiator to fill in “Compensation Details” (i.e., Compensation offered details) for each new appointee?

If filling in all these details looks like too much extra work for the CPO/Initiator, without any immediate benefit to them, they are not likely to take the trouble!
And most certainly we don’t want to make it mandatory to fill in the form – there will be a revolt!!

We must provide a very powerful incentive to CPO/Initiator to fill in this form voluntarily and every time, without fail.

Possible “reasons/incentives”:

Because Salary Payment (software) application needs that as an input (Taxation, etc.).
Because Manpower Cost (software) application needs it (MIS, Costing/Tendering, etc.).

However, what would really “incentivize” CPO/Initiator (to fill in this form) is to transform this form into a:
Salary Negotiation Device/Aid

Gross compensation is something that CPO must negotiate with each potential/prospective candidate based on:

#1 – What the candidate is currently drawing/getting in his existing company (Credible back-up).

#2 – What “rate” (in gross) he is expecting if he has to make a job change (i.e., the minimum below which he would not consider our offer).

#3 – What problems (of upsetting internal parity / apple-cart) would it pose for us if we were to offer him what he wants.

It is relatively easy to deal with 1 & 2.

[Salary Comparison Table]

Sr. No.	Position	Dept.	Interview #

A. Monthly (Basic, DA, HRA, LTA, etc.)
B. Annual
C. Retirement Benefit
D. Other

Total → (X)

FIRST STAGE (OF HELP)

Everytime CPO/Initiator changes any fig. in Column (B), figs. in Col. (C & D) would get revised automatically.

SECOND STAGE (OF HELP)

Everytime CPO enters a fig. (X) (i.e., Gross Annual or Monthly Salary that candidate expects or that CPO is willing to consider), the software works backward & fills up the detailed breakup as also (C & D).

For software to be able to work backward (from “gross” to “detailed break-up”), a formula would need to be provided to the subscriber. He would enter the figs. in advance, e.g.:

If Basic = a
HRA = 0.2 (a)
LTA = 0.1 (a)
Medical = 0.05 (a)
etc. etc.

The subscriber can use several different formulas for different “cadres/grades,” since different perks/benefits in different cadres/grades would have different “linkages” to “Basic Salary.”

THIRD STAGE (OF HELP)

In third stage (maybe in V3.0), CPO would be able to see/view Compensation-Profile Frequency Distribution Graphs on his computer screen.

These graphs could be for:

That company’s own internal employees’ profile (Designation-wise / Age-wise / Exp-wise).
General public/professionals profile.

Example:
Selecting graph for Manager:

Designation: Manager
Population: Manager 49
Candidate being offered: 33K

(Illustration of frequency distribution curve with Gross Salary Rs./month – 25K to 35K, peak at 30K, candidate at 33K marked on curve).

CPO/Initiating Dept can now clearly see where exactly the candidate (being interviewed) fits in, and whether the offer/expectation is in line or likely to upset a lot of existing employees.

#53 – #58 Invoice / Out of Pocket → Irrelevant

#60 – #65 Client List / Janamkundli (Client & Candidate) → Irrelevant

#67 – Executive Placed Summary (Ind-wise) → ✅ Relevant

#68 – Executive Placed Summary (Function-wise) → ✅ Relevant

#69 – Executive Placed Summary (Vacancy-wise) → ❌ Irrelevant

#70 – Executive Placed Summary (Client-wise) → ❌ Irrelevant

#71 – Executive Placed Summary (Joining-details wise) → ✅ Relevant

#72 – Executive Placed Summary (Comp-wise) → ❌ Irrelevant

#73 – Executive Placed Summary (Complete List) → ✅ Relevant

✦ In Global Recruiter, there would need to be only 2 statements of “Executives Joined/Appointed”: