An audit looks at where your team's week actually goes, from job ads written from scratch to interview notes typed up twice and the same details copied into the ATS, and puts a figure on each change, worked out from your own hours and rates, with every decision about a candidate staying with a recruiter.
Most consultants didn't get into recruitment to update a database, and yet more often than not that's where a good chunk of the day ends up, a few minutes at a time.
Every brief gets its own ad, written by whoever took the job, so the tone and the quality depend on the consultant and most of them need a heavy edit before they go live.
Notes taken in the interview, then written up again for the file and again for the client, and the structure changes from one consultant to the next.
The same details copied from email and notes into JobAdder or Bullhorn, which is pure double handling and usually where the mistakes creep in.
Where the role's up to, who's in the mix and what happens next, written from scratch each time a client asks, and it's the first thing to slip when a desk gets busy.
Lining up interviews across a candidate's diary and a hiring manager's, then chasing the feedback afterwards, one email at a time.
The acknowledgement, the "not this time" and the "still waiting on the client" emails, which matter a lot to the person on the other end and tend to be the ones that don't get sent.
Most agencies I talk to are running an ATS (JobAdder, Bullhorn, Vincere or similar), LinkedIn Recruiter, Microsoft 365 and a booking tool of some kind. The audit works on top of what you've already got, and doesn't ask you to change any of it.
The line that doesn't move: AI in an agency drafts the job ads, the interview write-ups and the client updates, and leaves every decision about a candidate with the recruiter. It never screens, ranks or shortlists anyone, a write-up only ever records what the candidate showed against the role, and candidate information stays inside tools that are approved for it.
It's built from one of my demonstration projects, and the money at the end uses the same arithmetic as the 6-minute check.
Two directors, eight consultants and two in support, placing office and professional roles, on one ATS, LinkedIn Recruiter and Microsoft 365, and an agency that's tried an automation tool before which nobody ended up using.
* Figures are illustrative, worked out from the assumptions above and the same 46 working weeks and 20% to 40% that the 6-minute check uses.
No, and the audit won't recommend anything that does. AI can draft the ad, write up the interview from your notes and put the client update together, and a recruiter decides who goes forward, every time.
The audit doesn't change your systems at all. It looks at what your consultants do around them, and any recommendation has to work with the ATS and the tools you're already using.
Anything I recommend has to keep candidate information inside tools that are approved for it, with nothing pasted into a personal or free AI account, and the audit says plainly where a job shouldn't go anywhere near an AI tool at all.
That tends to happen when a tool goes in without anyone changing the way the work's done around it, which is why the audit starts from your consultants' week and not from a product. The plan starts with the job that carries the least risk, on the desks that want to try it, so the team can see it working before anybody's asked to change.
Where the week goes, written up from the interviews, then each workflow that's worth changing with a figure on it, worked out from your own hours and rates, the ones AI should stay away from and why, and a plan for the next few months ranked by effort and by what each change is worth.
No. The report's yours, and it's written so that you or anyone else can run with it. If you do bring me back for a build inside 60 days, the audit fee comes off it.
No. Plenty of the firms I talk to are using it in bits and pieces or not at all, and that's fine, because the audit starts from where your week goes and not from the tools.
That mostly depends on your diary and how many of the team I'm talking to, so I'll give you dates on the call rather than guess here and get it wrong.
The interviews are recorded so that nothing gets lost, the recordings and notes are only used for your audit, and nothing about your business gets published without your written OK, the case study included.
The 15-minute call tells you whether an audit's worth doing at all. The audit tells you what to change, and what each change is worth on your own figures.
$1,500
+ GST · Founding audit
Three founding audits at $1,500 + GST. Once they're gone, audits move to standard rates.
The three founding audits have gone. Ask me about the standard rate.
That covers the interviews, one written report and one debrief. In return I ask for an anonymised case study and half an hour of feedback on how it went, and if you go ahead with a build inside 60 days the fee comes off it.
It suits a business where the principals are still close enough to the work to know where the week's going, where the same jobs keep coming round, and where somebody's already wondering whether AI could take some of it off the team's plate.
I build and run my own businesses on this (noomoo, CarbonCut, and the sales and marketing system that runs across them), so when I suggest a change to the way your team works I've a fair idea of what it takes to keep it running once I've gone.
The audit is me doing the interviews, me writing the report and me in the room for the debrief, and every figure in it is worked out from what you and your team tell me, not from somebody else's survey.
The check takes about six minutes and shows you what the repeat work is costing before you spend anything on AI. The call is free, and I'll tell you straight whether there's anything worth doing.