CEIPAL’s New Module Simplifies Search of Passive Candidates

Staffing software platform CEIPAL launched a new sourcing tool designed to improve its customers access to passive candidates.

Called AI-Driven Passive Candidate Sourcing, the feature allows recruiters to conduct searches of both active and passive candidates from within the CEIPAL platform. The tool’s algorithms crawl public sites such as Google and Github, and deliver the results to the recruiter’s dashboard. The system then ranks candidates to present best matches first.

The company suggests the tool will be especially useful for recruiters filling roles in areas such as technology, engineering and healthcare, where relatively few active candidates had been available, at least until the COVID-19 pandemic.

Passive Candidates ‘the Future’

CEO Sameer Penakalpati said CEIPAL sees “our new passive-candidate sourcing module as the future of CEIPAL and the sourcing industry.” However, it’s not clear how the flood of laid off and furloughed workers into the labor market since March will affect the company’s calculations.

CEIPAL’s algorithms are designed to help recruiters identify candidates who match a role’s skill and technical requirements, while also being a good cultural fit. To simplify the recruiter’s work, it presents users with simple-to-understand infographics for every profile.   

Artificial intelligence has become an increasingly important offering for companies like CEIPAL. In December, the company published a report showing that with two-thirds of staffing firms planned to implement an AI-driven ATS by the end of 2020.

Of “enterprise” staffing firms, meaning those with more than 100 recruiters, an even greater proportion—79 percent—will adopt AI.

Interestingly, CEIPAL’s research found that “marketing requirements” were the biggest driver of AI adoption. (Next came productivity, quality and reporting needs.) Respondents who called marketing requirements a pain point were more inclined to adopt AI in their recruitment practices than those who didn’t, 80 percent compared to 65 percent.

Sign up for our newsletter here.

Image: CEIPAL