Applicant management & hiring workflow
How this is scored
The daily work of hiring: pipeline stages per job, collaboration with hiring managers, structured evaluation, interview scheduling and candidate communication — judged on whether a decision is documented rather than merely made.
0 — An inbox of applications with a status field; no stages per job, no shared evaluation and no record of who decided what.
3 — A fixed pipeline with drag-and-drop stages and email templates, but hiring managers see everything or nothing, and evaluation is free-text comments.
5 — Configurable pipelines per job, hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, structured scorecards, interview scheduling with calendar integration, and templated candidate emails in German.
8 — Approval workflows for requisitions and offers, role-based access per team and location, structured interview kits, bulk actions with automated but reviewable candidate communication, and a history on each candidate of every stage change and who made it.
10 — The pipeline is an auditable record of a fair process: every decision attributed and reasoned, evaluation criteria fixed before applications arrive, reporting on time-to-hire and drop-off per stage, and the full history exportable per candidate for an AGG dispute.
The Works Council Advocate
The captured pages map the whole hiring process digitally with a stored history of emails and phone notes, per-screen rights down to who may see which document, a staffing-request extranet for hiring managers, and an appointment organizer that logs itself. But we found no public information on structured scorecards, on approval steps for requisitions and offers, or that a stage change is recorded together with the person who made it — a history that shows when something happened but not who decided it is only half an audit trail for a works council. 1 2 5 6