A statutory authority: 116 applications and up to 29 hours of panel time nobody had

The problem

The role needed a technically credible infrastructure leader: civil and rail delivery, complex stakeholder interfaces, contract and supplier management, governance, reporting, safety and risk. It sat inside a major rail infrastructure program with fixed timeframes of its own, so a delayed appointment was a delivery risk, not only an HR one.

Then the advertisement closed with 116 applications.

Every hiring manager knows this moment. A strong response is good news that behaves exactly like bad news. Those applications sat between the panel and a decision and the people who had to read them were senior engineers and project leaders who were meant to be delivering the program.

Do the sum on your own campaign. The 17 to 29 hour figure is an estimate, so here is the arithmetic rather than the headline. 116 applications × 9 to 15 minutes of total panel reading time each = approximately 17 to 29 collective hours.

That works out at roughly three to five minutes per application for each of three panel members, a fast read for a technical role at this level, not a generous one.

Run the same sum on the campaign sitting on your desk. Applications received, multiplied by ten minutes, multiplied by your panel size. Whatever number you get is the hours that have to come from somewhere before you even reach a shortlist and in practice they come from evenings, or they do not come at all and the campaign stalls for a fortnight while your strongest candidates accept something else.

What we did about it

We took all 116. The initial review of every application was the panel's single biggest administrative burden and it left their desks entirely. That is up to 29 hours of senior engineering time returned to the program it was supposed to be delivering.

We pre-screened and built the shortlist. Not a pile of resumes handed back, but an assessed field with the reasoning documented.

We kept the campaign moving while the panel did their day jobs. Interviews scheduled, panel requirements handled, timeline actively managed.

We looked after the candidates. Regular updates, questions answered, everyone clear on where they stood. On a field this size the difference between a good and a poor candidate experience is simply whether someone is communicating and it is the authority's reputation that carries it.

We produced the evidence. Scribing, referee checks and the selection report, plus the structured feedback sessions delivered to candidates on behalf of the panel the task that gets pushed to the bottom of every list and does the most reputational damage when it is skipped.

What we would tell you honestly

One appointment from 116 applications is normal and worth understanding. A large field is not the same as a strong field. Six candidates were good enough to interview and three were appointable. The value in a campaign like this is not volume, it is someone getting through the volume quickly enough that the three appointable people are still available when you reach them.

Five weeks was a support window, not a standing promise.

How the process stood up

On a high-volume campaign the risk is inconsistency: 116 applications assessed against a standard that drifts as the reader tires. Every application was reviewed against the same documented criteria. Every applicant was recorded, including those not progressed. A scribe took the interview record. The selection report was prepared to the authority's requirements and unsuccessful candidates received structured feedback rather than silence.