LinkedIn Talent is a recruiting solution. It offers core ATS capabilities, as well as proactive recruitment outreach tailored to LinkedIn’s site. LinkedIn Talent also enables competitive insights and recruitment marketing.
N/A
SilkRoad Recruiting
Score 7.9 out of 10
N/A
SilkRoad offers OpenHire, a recruiting and ATS system. It offers recruiting access through social media channels, data security, and EEO compliance for mid-sized to large businesses. It is a component of SilkRoad’s Lifesuite product line.
I really feel like [LinkedIn Talent Hub] has great potential to be used by many many companies. I think if it is made a little more user friendly with a little more development on the back end to remove some bugs, this could be a potential game changer. I have enjoyed working and getting to know this.
I think OpenHire is best for a small company (max about 2500 employees). The more employees you have the more HR people you should have and this can get expensive. I know most larger companies are using more advanced systems as well (Workday). During the selection process be sure to determine how many OpenHire users you would need. Ask whether your managers will be willing to work in the system as well or whether HR would have to own the entire process. If you are EEOC compliant, make sure you ask about diversity posting, APP tracking of applicants, and reporting needs. If you require an onboarding tool, SilkRoad offers RedCarpet. I found it to be very complex and hiring managers refused to use it. If you require an onboarding tool, definitely look into it. The demo may look great but there were a lot of implementation steps done to make it work and it just didn't fit our company culture. So make sure it fits yours.
Source of talent - LinkedIn has become the #1 place to engage talent.
Targeting / advertising / sponsoring employment ads are very effective. They are costly, but effective.
Connecting with talent via InMails and ability to send InMails to a pretty targeted audience with ease is great. This allows you to reach out/connect fast with people that "fit" what you are looking for. Other sites for recruiting, etc. are hit and miss. The quality of results is the strongest on LinkedIn and has been for many, many years.
The ease of use when it comes to create requisitions from a hiring managers side of things is definitely a positive. It's very much user intuitive and the specifications can be completely customized as to what a company would like to appear within said requisition.
Candidate correspondence is an absolute breeze as you can custom load templates into the system that can be edited at any time through an administrator in your company instead of having to go through a technical support team on the other side of things.
Overall, it's a pretty no muss no fuss system to use as there's not a great layer of complication about it and like most things, spaced practice and consistent exposure to it tend to iron out those rough edges. From an administration standpoint, adding in locations and hiring managers is incredibly simplistic along with reporting functionality.
Candidate folders have come a long way in the system and are much more user friendly at this point than when I began using the system some four years ago. It's very easy to shift candidate profiles between folders and edit on the fly.
Reporting. Major lacking here. If a job is closed then reopened (which that feature was recently removed), all reporting is wiped clean and picked back up with the "reopen" date. So it doesn't give a full history of the job activity.
Lacks adequate approvals in the system.
If you're a company with a risk of audits, I would not recommend Talent Hub. They lack compliance: the system allows us to "hire" someone who never applied to the job. Req history could be incomplete with the way reporting functions are set up. The system puts passive "sourced" candidates and applicants in the same bucket for pipeline workflows. Disposition status is inadequate and greatly lacking, etc.
Dashboard is not customizable.
We do not have our own unique req IDs. The system generates project IDs but these numbers are shared with all their clients, they're not unique to Ora so they are somewhat random and not in order.
They do not differentiate between a networking project and an approved requisition.
OpenHire's user roles can create issues depending on how your company's hiring process flows. For example, at one company, the hiring managers were extremely involved in screening candidates yet the system seems very geared towards use of centralized recruiters who distribute candidates. The lack of ability to customize roles and security to match our managers' needs created additional burden on HR as well as frustration from hiring managers.
I experienced several problems uploading documents to accompany a candidate's offer. There was a limit on the number, size and type of attachments that could be included, and there was no alternative (as vetted with OpenHire) besides sending a separate correspondence to the candidate. I found this to appear unprofessional to the candidate as well as creating an extra step in the process for HR/recruiting.
The requisition process had a few issues which created inefficiencies in the process. Firstly, for times when you need to post a role confidentially outside of your standard process, there was no way to designate the req as 'confidential'. Instead, you had to use the 'executive' status which created issues (ie: inaccurate data in reporting). Secondly, OpenHire was unable to upload the company directory of emails in the requisition approver fields so rather than being able to select from a drop-down or using a 'smart' field, you had to type each approver's email out manually thus increasing the potential for error and delay in the process.
It was a great solution for the company in all aspects, especially the cost. The company was not in a position to afford a solution such as Oracle PeopleSoft. The only reason we did not renew OpenHire was we got acquired by a much larger organization and started utilizing the tools that the parent company had available
It's not a bad system to use, there just seems to be so much click through to get one task achieved. Once you know all the little routes and pieces it gets easier.
Although we never experienced any issues with the LinkedIn Talent platform or required any support, we always knew in the event that we did need assistance, it was readily available. LinkedIn as a whole is always very supportive and responsive whenever I've had any issues or even a simple question in the past. I'm sure anyone experiencing difficulties with the platform would have a resolution from the support team just about instantly.
The support for Silkroad is awful. I know they are working on it and it seems to be slightly better but it's still not great. I have had multiple cases I have never heard from them on, others I have had to follow-up multiple times and one that took a year
It's definitely better than other competitors because of one a better pool of candidates, who are well categorised and filtered, and the database is well updated. Also, it has a better UI with end to end hiring requirement management, that helps to make hiring faster and smarter. The UX though is a bit laggy, which can be improved
NeoGov is a more simple system but just being able to require specific documents has been a huge time saver for us. Other elements in NeoGov aren't as robust but still it saves me a lot of time compared to OpenHire.
Positive impact. The tool has helped us in finding quality candidates for our hard to fill positions!
Helps in “pipelining” even after we fill a position, we make a folder of prospective candidates that we find through the platform. This list is then revisited once we have additional positions!
Outreach to global candidates. We have an office in Spain and we have found so many qualified candidates on the platform to fill those positions!
