People Puzzles™
TA Lab · Case Study
TA Systems Scan → TA Lab Systems Sprint™
The hiring plan was not the problem. The system was.
How a 400-person software company went from a hiring plan nobody believed in to a process the team actually runs — one scan, one four-week sprint, no new recruiters.
The client asked to stay unnamed. The details below are from the real engagement, shared with their permission.
The snapshot
- Company
- B2B software company, ~400 employees
- TA team
- 4 recruiters, 1 recruiting coordinator, 1 Head of TA
- Hiring plan
- ~120 hires over 12 months, engineering-heavy
- Engagement
- TA Systems Scan, then one 4-week TA Lab Systems Sprint
The situation
The Head of TA had been handed a plan for 120 hires and a team that was already underwater. Recruiters were working hard. Roles still stalled. Every missed month was explained as a sourcing problem, so the fix on the table was more sourcing spend and eventually another recruiter.
Before agreeing to any of that, she ran the TA Systems Scan. Five minutes, six areas of the talent system. The point of the scan is to separate a one-off problem from a repeated pattern — and the pattern here was not sourcing.
What the scan showed
Decisions
Every hiring manager ran a different interview process. Loops ranged from 6 to 11 interviews, and debriefs routinely slipped into a second week.
Intake
Intake meetings produced wish lists, not criteria. Requirements changed mid-search on roughly a third of open roles, resetting work already done.
Capacity
The team was carrying 31 open requisitions across 4 recruiters. The plan assumed output the team had never actually produced.
Three connected constraints, not one isolated issue. That is the line between “use a free tool” and “this needs a sprint” — so we scoped one.
The sprint: Diagnose → Fix → Install
Step 1: Diagnose
Week 1
Mapped how searches actually moved, not how the process doc said they should. Sat in on intake meetings, debriefs and offer reviews. The scan had pointed at decisions and intake; the diagnosis confirmed the real drag was unowned evaluation criteria and a debrief process with no deadline.
Step 2: Fix
Weeks 2–3
Rebuilt the interview loop for the two highest-volume role families: five interviews maximum including the recruiter screen, one named owner per criterion, no culture-fit interviews. Rebuilt intake around the three things a hire must be able to deliver, with changes after kickoff treated as a new search decision. Set a same-day debrief rule with a Friday decision deadline.
Step 3: Install
Week 4
Left the team with the rebuilt loop templates, the intake format, scorecards, and a 30/60/90-day plan with a named owner on every action. The Head of TA owns the loop standard; recruiters own intake quality; hiring managers own decision deadlines.
What changed, 90 days later
| Metric | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Interviews per hire | 8–11 | 4–5 |
| Time from final interview to decision | 6–9 days | Same day to 1 day |
| Searches reset mid-process | ~1 in 3 | ~1 in 10 |
| Recruiter screen to offer | 7–8 weeks | 4–5 weeks |
Measured on the two role families the sprint rebuilt, comparing the quarter before the sprint to the quarter after. The hiring plan did not change. The team did not grow.
The outcome the Head of TA cared about most was not in the table: when the next plan conversation happened, she brought a capacity case built on numbers the team now actually produces — and the “just add sourcing spend” suggestion did not come back.
Why it held
- The team fixed two constraints, not twelve. Everything else was deliberately left alone.
- Every installed practice has a named owner who is not a consultant.
- The rules are small enough to survive a busy week: five interviews, one week, one owner per criterion, decision on Friday.
- The 30/60/90-day plan meant the sprint ended into a roadmap, not into a vacuum.
Start where they started.
The scan is free, takes five minutes, and will tell you whether you are looking at an isolated issue a tool can fix or a connected constraint worth a sprint.