Chapter 13. Metrics and Analytics

13. SOP and procedure fragments

SOP: from accepted offer to start date

Field Description

Purpose Turn an accepted offer into a prepared start without loss of

responsibility.

Scope All accepted offers for employees and contractors where on-

boarding is mandatory, as well as agency-filled positions where

the client process includes coordination before start.

Roles The recruiter provides context handover; HR manages documents

and preboarding; the hiring manager owns the first-week plan;

IT/administrator handles equipment and access; the agency

manages the check-in contact with the candidate, where applicable.

Inputs Accepted offer, start date, approved terms, candidate contact,

manager, work format, required systems, known risks.

Steps 1. Confirm offer acceptance. 2. Start preboarding. 3. Send the

candidate next steps. 4. Create a context handover pack. 5. Assign

readiness tasks. 6. Conduct check-ins. 7. Confirm start. 8. Update

ATS and close the loop.

SLA / deadlines Process begins on offer acceptance day; readiness is checked

3–5 days before start; final confirmation is sent 1 day before

start.

Mandatory fields Candidate, role, start date, responsible person, tasks, risks,

communication dates, final status.

Outputs Employee started; non-start after offer is documented or start

plan is updated with responsible person and reason.

Exceptions Any change to compensation, role title, work format, or start

date must be approved and documented before it is communicated

as final.

Metrics Start rate, non-start after offer rate, readiness completion,

first-week blocker rate.

Example A candidate accepts the offer on Monday; HR sends next steps,

the manager writes the first-week plan, the IT request should be

ready by Friday, the recruiter checks for counter-offer or non-start

risk the following week.

SOP: role closure retrospective

Field Description

Purpose Close a vacancy as a learning cycle, not merely an administrative

status.

Scope Priority roles, roles difficult to fill, roles with offer refusal or

non-start risk, agency fills, and any roles selected for monthly

process review.

Roles The recruitment lead facilitates; the recruiter brings the funnel

and candidate data; the hiring manager brings the role view and

assessment; HR brings the preboarding and assessment fairness

view; the agency/client responsible person joins where relevant.

How to use this chapter

Working scenario. The HRD opens a report and sees: there are many vacancies, there seem to be enough candidates,

but hiring is not accelerating. Recruiters talk about a tough market, managers about a weak shortlist, the agency

about slow feedback. The numbers are all there, but there is no conversation about solutions: where exactly is the

bottleneck, who owns it, what are we changing this week and how will we know things have improved.

What actually broke here: the report exists but there is no management action. Metrics are not needed to punish

recruiters or to build a pretty dashboard. They are needed to find bottlenecks: where candidates are lost, where a

decision stalls, which source delivers quality, why offers are declined, which vacancies overload the team, where SLA

is breached and where there is a personal-data risk.

Read this chapter as a practical working module on recruitment analytics. If you are a recruitment lead, start with

the metrics map and the weekly review. If you are the HRD, use the sections on dashboards, interpretation and

management decisions. If you are an agency, focus on client reporting, feedback discipline and shortlist quality

protection. If you are an in-house recruitment team, use HarmonyATS reports as an example of a working loop:

vacancy, candidate, stage, rejection reason, SLA, recruiter, data-processing consent, source and funnel.

The chapter's golden rule: a metric is never a verdict. A single figure rarely explains the cause. Strong analytics

combine quantitative reporting, qualitative review and action with the owner. If the SLA report shows overdue

items, it does not mean "the recruiter is bad". It means: you need to understand the stage, owner, cause, business

priority, workload, decision-making authority and next step.

Remember in one phrase

A metric is only useful when it is followed by a decision with the owner.

Minimum starting point

A good dashboard starts not with the number of charts, but with the questions the team is ready to act on.

Step What to do Artifact

1 Choose 6–8 metrics for weekly review: Minimum dashboard

funnel, SLA, sources, rejection reasons, offer,

workload

2 For each metric, record the question, formula, risk of Metric card

wrong interpretation and action

1. What recruitment analytics is: a process, not reporting

Recruitment analytics is the discipline of regularly reading hiring data to improve the process. It answers not

"how much did we do" but "what is happening with the system and what needs to change". A good report should

lead to one of five decisions: change the process, change the criteria, rebalance workload, escalate the owner

or test a hypothesis. Bad analytics looks busy but helps no one. The team shows the number of CVs, interviews,

emails and calls, but cannot see why candidates never reach offer. Or it compares recruiters by the number of

added candidates without accounting for role complexity. Or it looks at time-to-hire but does not separate

feedback delay from genuine market absence.

2. How to design a dashboard without the punishment trap

A minimum dashboard is best built around questions, not around every available chart. For a weekly review,

6–8 indicators suffice. For a monthly audit you can add trends, source comparison, rejection quality and

consent hygiene.

Question Metric Formula / reading What not to do

Where are candidates now? Candidates by stage Number of active candidates Do not equate a full funnel

at each stage with quality

3. HarmonyATS report map: which question

each report supports

Using HarmonyATS as an example, it is useful to organise reports by management question. A single report rarely

gives a ready answer; more often it provides input for review.

HarmonyATS report What question it answers What to look at Risk of misuse What to cross-reference

Resume-source report Which sources deliver not just Source-to-stage conversion, Close a channel with low Funnel with details, notes,

volume but quality? offers by source, rejection volume even though it delivers cost / effort per

reasons by source strong finalists source

Rejection report Why do candidates or the team Stop reasons by stage, role, Assume reasons are true If taxonomy is dirty notes, debrief,

halt the process? source, recruiter and manager candidate feedback

Candidate-movement What actually moved in the Stage changes, finalist Accept movement as Funnel, SLA, qualitative

report process? movement, recruiter actions progress review

Funnel-with-details Where is the bottleneck, Stage entries, pass-throughs, Compare different roles as Role complexity, hiring

report conversion and loss? rejections, sources and the same plan, market context reason patterns

Time-to-hire report How long does the path to Total days, days by stage, Make speed the sole Quality, offer acceptance,

hire take? loss along the way objective role complexity

SLA report Where have candidates stalled Overdue candidates, days Use as a public blame Owner, cause, blocker,

beyond the limit? overdue, vacancy and stage board escalation

4. Funnel with details: how to find bottlenecks,

not culprits

The "Funnel with details" report shows how candidates progress through stages and where they are lost. But a

funnel on its own does not say whether this is good or bad. High attrition at screening could signal strong

filtering or weak sourcing. Low attrition at interview could mean a quality shortlist or an overly lenient

assessment. The funnel is therefore read through role context, criteria and reasons.

Symptom in funnel Possible cause What to check Action

Many candidates at entry, Source mismatch, weak Source report, screening Refine source strategy and

few pass screening vacancy description, too notes, rejection reasons must-have criteria

broad search

Many pass screening, few Screening does not check Notes, assessment card, Add targeted questions in

pass the manager interview key risks manager feedback screening

Candidates reach the final, Criteria shift at a late Rejection reports, offer notes, Rebuild decision rule and

but offers are rare stage, weak decision rule expectations on pay pre-conditions check

6. Candidate movement: movement worth discussing

The candidate-movement report is needed for a factual conversation: which candidates entered, moved, reached the

final, were rejected, returned or stalled. It is useful as material for a meeting but dangerous as a "who moved the

most cards" metric. Movement without quality can mean chaos.

For an agency, the candidate-movement report helps run a client meeting: not "we worked", but "here is what

happened with the funnel, here is where we need your feedback, here are the decisions blocking the shortlist".

7. Resume-source report: source quality instead of a volume race

You must not judge a source solely by the number of CVs. A good source may deliver fewer candidates but more

relevant screenings, final interviews, offers and hires. A poor source may fill the funnel, increase recruiter

workload and worsen candidate experience.

8. Rejection report: rejection reasons as a quality diagnosis

The rejection report is only useful with a clean reason taxonomy. If the team frequently selects "other",

"not a fit" or "weak", the report shows poor note discipline, not the market. A rejection reason must answer:

who ended the process, at which stage, due to which work-related factor or condition.

Example review: if many candidates reject on compensation at the final stage, the problem is not recruiter

activity. You need to look at the pay band, expectation management, market data, pre-conditions check and offer

approval speed. If many company rejections cite "role mismatch" after the manager interview, you need to go

back to screening and intake.

9. Recruiter report: workload, activity and

quality without micromanagement

The recruiter report can show added candidates, offers, rejections, actions, emails, meetings, comments and stage

changes. This is useful for workload review and training, but dangerous as a personal leaderboard table. A recruiter

on two senior executive roles will look very different from a recruiter on mass junior hiring. You must not compare

action counts without accounting for vacancy complexity.

Indicator What it may mean What to check before drawing conclusions

Few added candidates Complex role, narrow market, direct Vacancy complexity, response rate, source plan

search, weak source strategy

Many emails / actions High activity or lots of manual Stage results, automation, candidate quality

coordination

Many rejections Strict screening or weak source Rejection reasons, source mix

Many comments Good data hygiene or chaotic notes Note quality, usefulness for decisions

Few offers Complex roles, weak funnel, bottleneck Funnel, SLA, role priority, market

with the manager

High workload at final stage Coordination overload risk Calendar, manager availability, offer risk

A healthy recruiter work review sounds like: "Which roles are the heaviest right now, where is the bottleneck,

what support is needed, which data gaps are in the way?" An unhealthy review sounds like: "Why do you have fewer

added candidates?"

10. Vacancy report and data-consent report:

portfolio and data-risk control

The vacancy report provides a snapshot of active vacancies and candidate distribution across stages. Its purpose

is to help the HRD and lead see which roles need attention now: an empty funnel, too many stalled candidates,

overload at the final stage, a hold with no decision, no movement.

Vacancy snapshot What it means Action

Active role, 0 candidates after sourcing Source strategy is not working or Review intake, source plan and

the role is not a priority priority

Many candidates at screening, few interviews Screening has become the bottleneck or Check screening capacity and

the flow weakly matches the role criteria

Many awaiting feedback Manager / client has become the bottleneck Escalate to the owner

beyond SLA

Many finalists, no offer Problem with the decision rule, Run a final-stage review

compensation or approval

Long-active vacancy with repeated losses Role-market mismatch or weak Prepare business case / reset

offer role

The data-consent report is needed for operational control of personal data. It shows consent status, retention

periods, candidates without valid consent and bulk requests. This is not legal advice and not a replacement for

company policy, but the report helps the team avoid using data "from memory".

Consent signal Risk Action

Candidate without valid consent Cannot proceed under policy where Send consent request or suspend

consent is required use

Consent expiring soon Risk of losing future contact right Schedule renewal / deletion

review

Old warm pool without retention review Unmanaged database Run audit, archive, delete

or update

Bulk requests needed Risk of manual chaos Use approved template and

assign owner

11. Agency and in-house recruitment: one

analytics, different decisions

Agency and in-house recruitment teams look at similar reports but make different decisions.

Context What to look at Decisions Risk

Agency: delivery Shortlist conversion, client Refine client brief, protect fee, Client evaluates only CV

feedback SLA, source quality, change source strategy volume

candidate rejection reasons

Agency: account Vacancy priority, client Run reset with client, change Agency takes ownership of

management blockers, market feedback, expectations per agreement client bottleneck

rejection patterns

In-house recruitment Funnel, SLA, time-to-hire, Rebalance capacity, train Recruitment becomes a service

recruiter workload, manager managers, change process without influence

behaviour

HRD / leadership Vacancy portfolio, business Prioritisation, budget, policy, Too late to see systemic

priorities, cost of unfilled quarterly improvements risk

vacancy, consent risks

An agency report must show not just "how many candidates were sent" but process quality: criteria alignment,

assessment evidence in the shortlist, feedback discipline, source insights and offer risk. An in-house recruitment

report must show the business that hiring results depend not only on recruiters but also on hiring owners,

compensation, role clarity and decision speed.

12. Cases: how to read metrics in difficult

situations

Case 1. SLA breached but the recruiter is not the bottleneck

Field Review

Situation The SLA report shows 9 overdue candidates at the manager

feedback stage.

Risk The lead publicly blames recruiters, although feedback sits

with the hiring manager. Candidates lose trust, and the cause

is not fixed.

What to check Stage owner, interview date, manager availability, whether

there was a debrief slot, whether a backup decision-maker

exists, whether reminders were sent.

Recommended action Escalate to the hiring manager, set a fixed debrief window,

introduce a backup reviewer for leave and high-priority roles.

How to document "SLA breach: manager feedback, 9 candidates, avg overdue 3.4

days. Hypothesis: no protected feedback slot. Action: weekly

Tue/Thu debrief blocks, owner is HM, review next week."

Metric / next step Feedback latency, SLA breach rate by stage, candidate

rejection due to delay.

Case 2. A source delivers many CVs but almost no interviews

Field Review

Situation The resume-source report shows high volume from a job

board but low screening-to-interview conversion.

Risk The team celebrates a large funnel and overloads recruiters

with a weak flow.

What to check Rejection reasons by source, JD clarity, salary visibility, must-

have criteria, duplicate candidates.

Recommended action Refine the job post, add knockout questions, reallocate time

to direct outreach or referrals.

How to document "Source A: 62% inbound volume, 8% interview pass rate, top

reasons: role mismatch and salary mismatch. Action: rewrite

vacancy description, add salary range if policy allows, review

in 2 weeks."

Metric / next step Source-to-interview, source-to-offer, recruiter screening

hours per interview.

Case 3. Recruiter report shows low activity

Field Review

Situation One recruiter has fewer added candidates and emails than

colleagues.

Risk The lead draws a weak-work conclusion without accounting for

portfolio complexity.

13. SOP: the recruitment analytics cycle

SOP: weekly recruitment analytics review

Field Process details

Purpose Identify current bottlenecks across active vacancies and assign

actions for the week.

Scope All active vacancies, candidates in process, SLA breaches,

offer risks, source issues, consent risks.

Roles The recruitment lead facilitates. Recruiters bring context.

The hiring manager joins for priority roles. The coordinator

updates the action list. The HRD joins monthly or for

escalations.

Inputs Vacancy report, funnel with details, SLA report, candidate-

movement report, rejection report, resume-source report,

recruiter report, data-consent report where relevant.

Steps 1. Start with priority vacancies. 2. Review SLA breaches by

owner. 3. Review candidates awaiting a decision.

4. Check funnel bottlenecks. 5. Review offer risks and rejection

reasons. 6. Check source quality for roles with weak funnels.

7. Check consent risks for the warm pool and reactivation.

8. Assign action, owner and deadline.

Mandatory fields Vacancy, metric signal, hypothesis, action, owner, deadline,

verification metric.

Output Weekly action list, escalations, updated candidate statuses,

notes for the monthly audit.

Metrics Action closure, SLA breaches, feedback delay, stalled

candidates, recurring bottlenecks.

SOP: monthly analytics audit

Field Process details

Purpose Identify systemic issues the weekly meeting does not resolve:

source strategy, criteria drift, manager SLA, recruiter workload,

consent hygiene, AI usage quality.

Scope The last 4–6 weeks or a full month across active and closed

vacancies.

Roles HRD / recruitment lead owns the process. Recruiters,

hiring-manager representatives, recruiting operations and

legal/HR compliance join by topic.

Inputs Trend exports or report snapshots: sources, rejections, funnel,

time-to-hire, SLA, recruiters, vacancies, consents.

Steps 1. Compare trends with the previous period. 2. Identify the top

3 recurring bottlenecks. 3. Check rejection reason quality. 4.

Review source quality and concentration. 5. Review recruiter

workload assessment fairness. 6. Review consent and retention

issues. 7. Select 1–3 improvement projects.

Output Monthly audit note, improvement backlog, owner list, policy /

SOP updates, training needs.

What to take from this chapter / where to go next

What you need Where to find it

Terms and short definitions Appendix B. Mini glossary

Ready-made procedures and SLA Appendix D. Ready-made procedures and processes

Templates for use Appendix E. Template library

End-to-end BDM and Backend examples Appendix F. End-to-end BDM and Backend cases

Full AI prompts for this chapter Appendix H. AI prompt library, section H8. Analytics

and economics

In short: this chapter owns the metrics and analytics for HarmonyATS. If you need a ready-made artifact, take it

from the appendices and leave the application logic in the chapter.