Lumesse TalentLink (legacy) vs. PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool

Lumesse is well suited for global companies, that are not too large and may get enough attention/support from other larger vendors.

Incentivized

Independently Invited by TrustRadius

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info

Organizations who have very few applications and/or very few positions posted are probably less likely to benefit as high from PeopleAdmin. Large organizations who have several positions and/or several applications/applicants can definitely benefit from this product. This product is not as well suited for performance management as I had hoped because there is not a lot of freedom to creating and designing different evaluations for different position types in the system when you have an organization that has thousands of different employees and types.

Incentivized

Independently Invited by TrustRadius

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info

• It has open text boxes to add notes, on the individual candidate home page. Which is helpful when making a quick look at an individual, these notes are very obvious.
• It has a search function; however it lacks a wild card (*); so if a req or candidate are spelled differently or referred to differently, there is no way to find them
• Its a simple, no frills lay out

• Applicant tracking was a good use of this tool for our department. I think it could use a few more customization features but overall it was a good tool to weed out applicants who were not qualified for the position.
• The system has some canned reporting tools that also worked well for our department and management needs.
• It was a great place to house our position descriptions and provided a readily accessible source for hiring managers to make requested updates and changes and for employees to see and have access to their position descriptions.

• I have found the system to be very inconsistent and "buggy", for lack of a better term. Today I searched for an internal requisition number and the system could not find the data. I found it by scrolling through manually, and verified that I had entered the information precisely as it appeared. There seems to be no explanation as to why it could not locate this particular entry, but I have been able to use the function without a problem in other instances.
• The navigation is not intuitive or user-friendly. It takes an exorbitant amount of clicks to accomplish a task. Each action is confusing and time-consuming.
• The system requires a large amount of redundant information in order to enter a job and does not auto-populate. If I indicate a position is located in Chicago, it would logically follow that the state is "Illinois", the country is "United States", and the currency is "USD". I have to manually input these details in both the requisition as well as the separate job advertisement page.
• Changes to the job requisition are not reflected in the job advertisement, as they are separate entities. If you need to make a change, you have to update the details twice.

• PeopleAdmin's internal report writer needs work. Currently, in version 7, reporting can only be done requisition number by requisition number. The report writer needs to be modified so it can create reports enterprise-wide.
• PeopleAdmin's Data Mart product needs substantial modification. In version 5.8, on a monthly basis, PeopleAdmin provided us with an Microsoft Access database containing our historical data up to that period end. In version 7, the "Data Mart" contains our historical data. The Data Mart consists of over 300 files. These files are not database table downloads nor is it parts of a database data dump. Rather, the files appear to be scrapes from html pages. They contain html codes and other character data that needs to be cleaned before they can be uploaded. The files are not in a table-by-table format. Any one file can contain data from two or more tables. The format of the Data Mart makes it difficult to load the data into a database and format it in a table structure that is comparable to the Access database provided with version 5.8.

This seems to work for us because of all the things we can do with the system (i.e. create all kinds of reports).

We are evaluating our options as it relates to PeopleAdmin. We are likely to renew as we can not find another product that gives us the functionality we have with PeopleAdmin 5.8 in the area of Position Description. Outside of that, we would likely be close to finding another product solution.

Lumesse is an average to abover average ATS in my opinion. We work with Lumesse because they came to us with our new client. I don't have an overall issue with Lumesse like I do with some other ATS's.

Incentivized

Independently Invited by TrustRadius

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info

I've used both Target Recruit and HR Smart. When working with Target Recruit it quickly became apparent it was not the right solution for us. Another solution we examined prior to selection PeopleAdmin was iCIMS. iCIMS is a very social system but was not as familiar with the Higher Education recruitment processes as was PeopleAdmin.

Incentivized

Independently Invited by TrustRadius

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info

• Decreased employee efficiency -- There are so many steps to create an entry that our recruiters use the system as little as possible. We had hoped to use Lumesse for centralizing information and reporting, but have not been able to do so. Instead, each recruiter keeps a separate Excel sheet, defeating the purpose of having an ATS in the first place. We only use Lumesse to post to our website now. We are very disappointed.

• We are now able to track our recruitment sources to determine our ROI on university paid subscriptions.
• We have reduced our recruiting approval review times by 50%
• We have identified areas for improvement substancially by having robust reporting available at our fingertips.