Back to work

A Ukrainian exchange of volunteering, assistance and job search, for Ukrainians at home and displaced.

A volunteer project: twelve interviews with employers led to eight hypotheses about posting a vacancy. I tested the prototype online, refined it and handed it to the client, and the solutions were then implemented.

12 employer interviews8 hypotheses to improve vacancy posting

Task
Improve the employer experience
Client
Robota v tylu
Context

Context

  1. The client set three directions: posting ads, searching for people and replying to reviews.
  2. The user is an employer with little hiring experience. If they can work out how to fill in a vacancy, professional recruiters will cope with it easily.
  3. The solution had to be based on research, pass the tests, and be real and simple to implement.
Stage 1

Study

After sending screening questionnaires out on several resources, I interviewed 12 employers who had searched for candidates over the previous three to six months, using different services. The questions covered three areas:

12in-depth interviews with employers
100pains captured in the synthesis
120gains captured in the synthesis
60jobs of the employer captured
Stage 2

Analysis

I analysed each interview with a Value Proposition Canvas. All the work of an employer came down to four groups of steps.

Posting

  • Create a new vacancy or ad
  • Publish a template (edit a finished ad)
  • Activate a vacancy (one that was lying in the archive)
  • Analyse the vacancies on the market

Candidate search

  • Through a search query
  • Through various filters
  • Viewing applications for the job
  • Sorting
  • Picking suitable candidates by category
  • Comparing by characteristics
  • Processing the applications

Communication

  • Analyse the CV
  • Schedule a meeting or call
  • Meet or call the candidate
  • Give feedback after the meeting
  • Fight for a worthy candidate who wants to choose another company
The Value Proposition Canvas with the pains, gains and jobs of the employer
The Value Proposition Canvas
Stage 3

Focus

To generate ideas I used the "How might we" framework. The pains became questions, for example: "Job applications come from one location, but I would like to be pulled up from other cities" turned into "How can we notice a candidate and an employer from different regions?".

The client had set three directions. I could have spread across all of them, but I chose to do one task well rather than three superficially: posting a vacancy.

140ideas from the pains, gains and jobs
16hypotheses about posting a vacancy
8hypotheses taken into the prototype
The "How might we" canvas with stickers
How might we
Stage 4

Solutions

Eight hypotheses went into the prototype. Each starts from what employers said and ends with a behaviour I hoped to see. These are expected effects, not measured results.

1

Progress bar

Evidence
Employers said that on a new platform the paths were not clear, and that they did not know which stage they were on.
Decision
A progress bar with the name of every step of posting a vacancy.
Expected
More employers, especially those with little experience, reach the end of the flow.
Measure
Completion rate of the posting flow and drop-off per step.
2

Detailed input fields

Evidence
Employers described that without clear requirements a vacancy takes long to close.
Decision
More specific fields, each with a short description.
Expected
Employers complete a vacancy faster, and candidates ask fewer clarifying questions.
Measure
Time to publish and the share of completed fields.
3–4

Cities and contact details

Evidence
Employers wanted to reach candidates beyond one city: “If I choose Kyiv, I'm limited to it.” (translated). Contacts were written in very different formats, with no way to tap through to a mail or a messenger.
Decision
Several cities, regions and countries in one vacancy, and separate fields for phone, mail, messengers and social networks.
Expected
One vacancy can reach several regions, and candidates contact the employer through the channel they prefer.
Measure
Share of vacancies with more than one location, and taps per contact channel.
5

Deactivation and renewal

Evidence
A person can find a candidate elsewhere and forget to close the vacancy, so candidates keep writing without knowing it is closed.
Decision
A vacancy can be deactivated or renewed automatically after 30 days, and the employer is told about it by e-mail.
Expected
Fewer outdated vacancies in the feed, and a count of the vacancies that were not renewed.
Measure
Share of vacancies that are renewed against those that expire.
6

Preview

Evidence
Employers could not see how a vacancy would look after publishing.
Decision
A "Preview" button at the last step of publishing.
Expected
Employers check the vacancy before they publish it.
Measure
Share of postings that open the preview.
7

Promoting a vacancy

Evidence
A vacancy can get lost in the feed, and an employer may need to find someone urgently.
Decision
The employer can promote a created ad: choose a plan and keep it at the top of the list for a set number of days.
Expected
Promoted vacancies get more responses than regular ones.
Measure
Share of vacancies that are promoted, and responses per promoted and per regular vacancy.
Choosing a plan to promote a vacancy
8

Share

Evidence
There was no clear way to share a vacancy to social networks.
Decision
A clear "Share" button that opens a sheet with the link and the social networks.
Expected
Employers share a vacancy in a couple of taps.
Measure
Taps on "Share" and completed shares.
Stage 5

Testing

Testing was a separate stage. I tested the prototype online with approximately 20 participants. It was not a check of each hypothesis: it showed where the flow itself was unclear, and I refined the design accordingly.

1

Search was not clear

Problem
Respondents did not understand how to search for vacancies.
Change
I added a search field and made the filter less prominent.
2

Filters were hard to use

Problem
Respondents did not understand how to filter a search query.
Change
The filter became a full page, with the information changed to match the vacancy.
3

The names were ambiguous

Problem
Almost everyone who took part did not understand what the “Add” button meant, and there were many questions about the names.
Change
“Add” became “Add ad”. “Work/Consumes” became “Work”. “My help” became “Help”. The actions became “Suggest” and “Search”. The “Add” button was removed where it was not needed.
The screens after the changes from usability testing
Stage 6

Outcomes

12interviews behind the hypotheses
8hypotheses in the prototype
~20participants in the online testing