Case study
How a ~50-person recruiting agency freed 10+ hours per recruiter per week
Recruiters at a ~50-person agency were toggling between the ATS, LinkedIn, job boards, email and spreadsheets to move a single candidate forward. We tied those into one automated workflow on the tools they already had. It freed 10+ hours per recruiter per week, and there was nothing new for the team to learn.
- Trigger
- AI step
- Person decides
- Your systems
- TriggerCandidate details come in
- Your systemsCaptured once
- Your systemsKept in sync across the ATS, email and spreadsheets
- Person decidesRecruiters keep working in the same tools
- freed per recruiter, with no new tools
- 10+ hrs/week
At a glance
- Client
- A ~50-person recruiting agency (anonymized)
- Problem
- Moving one candidate forward meant toggling between five tools and re-keying the same details
- What we built
- One automated workflow connecting the tools the team already used
- Results
- 10+ hours per recruiter per week freed
- Tools
- ATS, LinkedIn, job boards, email, spreadsheets
The client is anonymized. The figures are the real before-and-after numbers from the project, reported as-is and not rounded up.
What was the problem?
No single task was the problem. The problem was the hand-offs: candidate details copied from LinkedIn and job boards into the ATS, then into email, then into a tracking spreadsheet. Every step was small; together they ate a large part of each recruiter’s week.
What did we build?
One automated workflow across the tools the agency already used, so candidate details are captured once and kept in sync instead of being copied by hand between the ATS, email and spreadsheets.
Nothing was replaced. Recruiters kept working in the same ATS, inbox and spreadsheets; they just stopped copying between them.
What changed?
| Measure | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Recruiter time on tool-switching and re-keying | Spread across five tools | 10+ hours per recruiter per week freed |
| New tools the team had to learn | n/a | None |
- freed per recruiter, with no new tools10+ hrs/week~50-person recruiting agency case study: freed per recruiter, with no new tools
What should you know before building something similar?
- Map one candidate’s full journey across every tool before automating anything. The waste is usually in the hand-offs, not in any single tool.
- Pick one system as the source of truth for each field, or automation just spreads inconsistencies faster.
- Keep the team in the tools they know. Adoption is the hidden cost of adding a new one.
Could this work for you?
If your team does similar work by hand, probably. Request a free workflow audit and you get a one-page plan: the 3 tasks worth automating first, hours saved, and what a build would cost. See also AI automation for recruiting and staffing and AI workflow automation.