Can both the Client and the Candidate be the Customer in a Recruitment scenario

[Sidney Vianna]

The real world doesn't work in ISO clauses but good company processes will satisfy all the standard requirements.

It doesn't? :mg: There goes my theory of explaining the World in terms of BI/AI (Before ISO {9001}) and After ISO). Kidding aside, that is an important reminder. The goal is NOT to make the organization adequate it's operation along the clauses of the Standard, but apply the relevant requirements in a way that facilitates customer satisfaction and performance improvement.

Consider this your temporary workers this way:
Suppliers - They are giving you product, themselves and other tangibles that you might require like resumes, work cards, identification, etc.
Product - If your client, the future employer, is paying you for a "service", that is, finding the right recruit, then not only is your service the product but also the recruit. We sell design service to your specifications but we can also manufacture the end product.
Customer - I work with a recruiter that charges future employers a percentage of my first year's salary if I am placed. The recruiter and I both have an interest in maximizing that salary. In some cases, he becomes involved in negotiations on my behalf. What if I want the job but the company doesn't want to pay the fee? If I pay it, I'm instantly the big customer. I had a recruiter send out my resume in violation of our notification agreement. I consider that to be a lack of control of Customer Property. I'm the customer until he finds a company for me.

This is a lot like a manufacturer's sales representative. They are selling a service to the manufacturer (selling their product) at the same time providing service (liason between manufacturer and you) and product (goods from the manufacturer that they represent).

Good analogy.

 

[Icy Mountain]

Good analogy.

Thanks, Sidney. If you loan your representative a $10,000 demonstration unit, you want a little more than a promise that you are going to get it back in working order.

 

[Zuggy]

I have already asked several questions relating to the recruitment scenario so thanks to everyone who has helped me so far.

This is how it works - the client contacts us (the recruitment agency) and requests the supply of temporary staff. We check out the skills required for the position and then supply relevant temporary staff to the client for the timescales required

I am concerned that I seem to have had many responses where the implication is that BOTH the client AND the temporary staff are the customer in this scenario

Can someone give me some advise - in my mind only one of these can be the customer and it is whoever is paying for our service - the client??

thanks
Debbie

Hi Debbie,

IMHO this is a simple answer... The person who pays the bills is the customer. Your temporary labor is your resource (right)? The only difference is that in most cases your labor comes to you free of charge. However, this does not relieve you from the document control aspect of the standard.



Tim

 

[BradM]

OK, everyone help me out here.

I have a strong feeling that there is a compliance/standard need for operationally defining a customer. What is it? This is a really interesting question, regardless of need. Just wondering what the requirements are for this.

IMHO, this thread has not even begun touching the surface of who is the customer. You still have the internal stakeholders/external stakeholders, part/entire supply chain, vertical integrators, regulatory bodies, etc.

My opinion is that that client/candidate are both forms of customer. However, there are different processes and different measures of success for each. Large organizations may have large commercial accounts, small private accounts, lots of industrial clients, etc.

So, defining customers could become very large, very quick. Hence my query into the need to do this. If it's just a rhetorical question, that's cool too!

 

[JaneB]

I seem to always be on the opposite side of Jane!

I can take it, Icy. And a good discussion is always interesting.

I had a recruiter send out my resume in violation of our notification agreement. I consider that to be a lack of control of Customer Property. I'm the customer until he finds a company for me.

? you're 'the customer until he finds you a company' Very confusing. I absolutely agree he should not have done that, and it almost certainly violated a code of professional ethics, but I don't really see it as 'customer property'.

I tend to stay with ISO 9004's definition of customer: organisation or person that receives a product (or service). Anyone who has ever had much to do with being on the pointy end of a recruiter will know very, very well who the recruiter sees as their customer: it ain't you, it's the person commissioning the service, the one who actually pays their bills. Yes, I know they also get a commission from you, which is nice for them. You're their 'farm animals' so they look after you to some extent, fatten you up when necessary. But they don't drop everything and run when you call. They reserve that for their customers.

I've helped a number of recruiters get certification. And all the ones I've worked would find it very, very strange & alien to be expected to think of the people they place as their 'customers'.

 

[Paul Simpson]

It doesn't? :mg: There goes my theory of explaining the World in terms of BI/AI (Before ISO {9001}) and After ISO).

Like it! I shall have to remember AI and BI. There was life BI .... wasn't there?

Kidding aside, that is an important reminder. The goal is NOT to make the organization adequate it's operation along the clauses of the Standard, but apply the relevant requirements in a way that facilitates customer satisfaction and performance improvement.

Absolutely. I find in any discussion between a group of professionals it tends to get very specific and detailed .... always a danger of losing the big picture.

Present company excepted.

 

[Icy Mountain]

? you're 'the customer until he finds you a company' Very confusing. I absolutely agree he should not have done that, and it almost certainly violated a code of professional ethics, but I don't really see it as 'customer property'.
I've helped a number of recruiters get certification. And all the ones I've worked would find it very, very strange & alien to be expected to think of the people they place as their 'customers'.

You are absolutely right about the recruiter's focus...and the recruiters that were too xenophobic to see me as a customer no longer have the option to "place" me. I like to think that we are concerned here with how to raise quality by considering what should be and not just accepting what is. See Sidney's comment:

This is an interesting scenario. The way I would approach this is to consider the temporary workers as suppliers, product and customers too. In a holistic approach, besides monitoring the satisfaction of the organizations that hire the employment agency services (customers), I would monitor the satisfaction of the people rendering their services as well, because if I am not keeping them happy, I will run out of "product" to sell to my clients.

The average recruiter may be practicing animal husbandry on us recruits but unhappy dairy cows have much lower production and there are few things more dangerous that a ticked off farm animal.

 

[Martijn]

Part of the discussion I think is about what the exact setup of the recruitment agency is. I think about organizations like Manpower and such.

I tend to stay with ISO 9004's definition of customer: organisation or person that receives a product (or service).

IMHO a recruitee (does this word exist?) receives the service of being hooked up with a company, and the recruitee pays for it indirectly in lower wages in comparison to what the company pays the recruitment agency.

Thus in some form the recruitee is your customer.

Anyone who has ever had much to do with being on the pointy end of a recruiter will know very, very well who the recruiter sees as their customer: it ain't you, it's the person commissioning the service, the one who actually pays their bills. Yes, I know they also get a commission from you, which is nice for them. You're their 'farm animals' so they look after you to some extent, fatten you up when necessary. But they don't drop everything and run when you call. They reserve that for their customers.

It's probably best to stick to the 9004 definition, because I know loads of companies that don't drop everything and run when customers call. They're still customers though as in the 9004 definition...

 

[Icy Mountain]

It's probably best to stick to the 9004 definition, because I know loads of companies that don't drop everything and run when customers call. They're still customers though as in the 9004 definition...

:truce: Let me up, Marti, I've had enough!
Seriously, though, who is the customer is in the eyes of the beholder. I think that most recruits believe that they are customers as they have engaged the services of a recruiter to assist them in finding a job. That the recruiter may behave otherwise is irrelevant.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

It is an interesting proposition, and I think it could be both.

The posted question asks "who is the customer" in terms of the whole system. If you ask who is the customer for each process, I think it will be more clear that the customer changes from process to process. As each of those transactions is optimized, then the ultimate end customers needs are better satisfied as well.