PeopleFluent - a vendor user perspective
Updated July 19, 2016
PeopleFluent - a vendor user perspective
Score 6 out of 10
Overall Satisfaction with PeopleFluent Mirror Suite for Talent Management
I am a user of PeopleFluent. One of our clients has implemented it, and I am the primary resource here who interfaces and accesses PeopleFluent. It is designed as a VMS (vendor management system) and ATS (applicant tracking system). I believe it is primarily used by HR at our client to manage job requisitions that need to be filled by vendors like my company. I access open requirements in the system, submit candidates to those positions, schedule and confirm interviews, and work through onboarding when appropriate.
- Tracks the entire process from creating a req through onboarding.
- Includes a lot of information, and has a lot of fields and areas for collecting information.
- Can notify multiple vendors simultaneously of updates.
- The interface is a little confusing. I'm not sure if it's something that can be fixed in implementations, or if it's inherent to PeopleFluent, but there are almost too many tabs asking for too much information. A lot of it can be repetitive as well.
- Changing your password/resetting your password seems to be nightmarish. It requires an organization ID as well as security questions, and forces you to reset your password far too often. I really dislike that feature.
- Honestly, PeopleFluent itself looks pretty outdated. I feel as though the entire application really needs a facelift to be more current.
- From a vendor use perspective, PeopleFluent is a mid-tier choice, and I can't really comment on ROI.
Out of the VMS's listed, I'd say PeopleFluent is solidly in the middle. Fieldglass and IQN are probably easier to navigate and more modern looking, and I definitely don't run into the login problems with them. Beeline and PRO Wand are probably on par with PeopleFluent. They have their plusses and minuses in terms of navigation and ease of use. Covendis is definitely worse than PeopleFluent. Covendis is a mess - very difficult to navigate, not intuitive at all with terrible workflow. Again, I didn't select PeopleFluent; my client did, and I have chosen to work with them, therefore I work with PeopleFluent.
I suppose it's well suited as a VMS (vendor management system) and job requisition system for companies who use vendors to do a lot of their hiring. It does contain many fields and tabs where you can provide vendors with a lot of information, and provide details on rate expectations. It allows for resume uploads and notes, which are good, and the ability to notify/update multiple vendors simultaneously is something that is absolutely necessary in this sort of software. However, I believe there are better choices out there. I've interfaced with numerous vendor management systems over the years, and although PeopleFluent isn't the worst, it definitely isn't the best either. I'm not sure that "isn't appropriate" per se, because it does the basics of what it needs to do, but personally, I would shoot for a different VMS were I implementing one (from my perspective). I'd prefer a VMS with a more up to date interface, and less confusion in the candidate submittal process. And I certainly think there are systems that handle the log in/password process much more smoothly.
PeopleFluent Feature Ratings
Using PeopleFluent Mirror Suite for Talent Management
PeopleFluent seems to have all the functionality one would need, but it can be a bit overwhelming. Depending on the client implementation, it can be downright confusing and not intuitive. My 6 rating comes from the fact that it seems like the system can be configured to actually be confusing and not make sense. I think a VMS should be set up not to allow a customer to configure it in such a way as to not really work, or to allow users to circumvent steps. I also really don't like the "organization key" that needs to be entered every time you log in. Why is a login and password good enough for 99% of the systems out there, but PeopleFluent requires an extra field?