Common questions
When we work with staffing and RPO leaders, these are the questions that come up most
More recruiter capacity doesn't automatically become revenue. We're limited by reqs and client demand, not sourcing time.
Correct, and the model is built around exactly that constraint. Every revenue line is multiplied by a demand-capture rate (default 50%, conservative) that represents the share of freed capacity your req flow can actually absorb. Open Show the math and you'll see it applied at every step. Freed time only converts to a placement when there is a role to fill it; if your demand is tighter, dial the rate down. The model never assumes 100% conversion, because that is not how a staffing desk works.
Our bottleneck is client decisions and interview scheduling, not sourcing.
For some desks that's true, and the demand-capture rate is where you account for it. What the calculator targets specifically is the sourcing and screening portion of the cycle, which research puts at roughly a third of the week on sourcing alone plus another fifth on resume review.3 That is the part a sourcing platform compresses. If your constraint is entirely downstream, set capture low; because the reclaimed sourcing time is so large, even a modest conversion still produces a meaningful number.
Where does the productivity lift come from?
It's derived from time studies, not asserted. Recruiters spend about 13 hours a week sourcing per role and roughly 22% of their time reviewing resumes;3 one analysis of 200+ recruiters found only 28% of time spent on actual recruiting work. Automating screening alone is documented to cut recruiter time per hire by 60-70%.3 Against that, the conservative default of a 15% net lift in placements is deliberately modest, and below hireEZ's measured customer range.6 Set it to whatever your team believes is real; the platform's analytics also measure the actual lift from your data.
Cutting LinkedIn means losing reach.
In practice it usually widens reach while cutting cost. A single network reaches one audience through one channel, and InMail response rates run only 10-25%.4 Sourcing across 45+ platforms surfaces roughly 7× more qualified talent, and resurfacing your own ATS adds about 2.5× more placeable candidates you already paid to acquire.6 The margin-floor line counts only the seat-cost reduction; the reach gain is upside it doesn't even price in.
We're contingent. We only get paid if we fill, and speed to submit is everything.
Then velocity is working in your favor here, not against you. In contingent and split desks the first firm to submit qualified, interested candidates usually wins the placement, so a faster sourcing cycle6 directly raises your win rate on reqs you already work, with no new business development required. That win-rate gain is part of what the demand-capture rate is meant to capture; if speed is your edge, your real capture rate is likely higher than the conservative default.
Couldn't I just cut recruiters instead of growing?
You could, because capacity is fungible: the same freed hours can fund growth (more placements on the same team) or cost reduction (the same output with fewer seats). This calculator models the growth path, since that's where the upside sits for most firms. But the recruiters' worth of capacity figure in the results shows the headcount you would otherwise have to hire to reach the same output, which is the number to use if you're weighing the cost-reduction path instead.
How fast does this pay off, and will my recruiters actually adopt it?
hireEZ is built to deploy in weeks and prove value inside 90 days, and adoption is the whole point of returning sourcing hours to recruiters rather than adding another tool to manage. Most importantly, you don't have to take the productivity lift on faith: the analytics layer measures the actual change in your sourcing time, fill rate, and time-to-fill from your own data, so the assumption in this calculator can be replaced with your real numbers.
