Outdated ATS Software and Hiring Delays: What the Data Shows
A statistic attributed to SHRM and repeated across HR-technology publications puts a number on something most recruiters already feel: 68% of recruiting managers say a slow or outdated applicant tracking system causes hiring delays of 30% or more.Here's the context behind that figure, sourced honestly, and where the delay it describes actually comes from.
The statistic, and an honest note on sourcing
The 68%-of-recruiting-managers figure is one of the most frequently cited SHRM-attributed statistics in recruiting-technology content right now — it shows up across HR-tech blogs, vendor comparisons, and industry roundups as shorthand for “legacy ATS platforms are a real bottleneck, not just an outdated-feeling interface.” We're citing it here as that widely-referenced, industry-standard figure rather than linking a specific SHRM report page we've pulled and verified ourselves. If you need this for a citation in something formal, confirm the exact source and publication date directly with SHRM rather than relying on secondary repetition, including ours.
SHRM's Talent Access Report has separately put median time-to-fill at 44 days and average time-to-fill at 54 days for non-executive roles, with executive searches typically running longer. Those numbers predate the current wave of AI-native screening and interviewing tools, so they describe a baseline for what “slow” looked like under a manual or lightly-automated process — not necessarily where things stand today for teams that have already adopted AI screening or AI interviews.
Why the delay sits with the ATS specifically
A traditional applicant tracking system was built primarily as a system of record: it tracks which stage a candidate is in, stores their resume and scorecards, and manages the paper trail of a hiring decision. It was never built to actually evaluate anyone — screening a resume, conducting an interview, or grading a technical assessment are all separate, usually manual, steps that still depend entirely on a recruiter's or interviewer's available hours. A clean, modern-feeling ATS interface doesn't change that underlying constraint; it just makes the bottleneck easier to look at.
At low applicant volume, that bottleneck is barely noticeable — one recruiter can review ten resumes and run three calls in an afternoon without much friction. The delay compounds specifically at real volume: hundreds of applicants against a handful of open roles, which is exactly the scenario a growing share of both technical and high-volume hiring falls into.
Where AI screening and interviewing actually change the number
Automating the specific stages a manual ATS leaves untouched — resume screening, first-round interviewing, technical assessment — removes the bottleneck the SHRM figure describes, rather than just organizing around it. On JustInterview.ai's own platform, that looks like roughly 4 minutes to screen a batch of 500 resumes and a 70% faster time-to-hire figure relative to a fully manual process, based on internal platform data across 5,000+ assessed candidates. We're disclosing these as our own internal figures, not as a replication of the SHRM study or a claim that every team will see the identical result — the underlying mechanism (removing a manual review bottleneck) is the same reason both numbers move in the same direction.
Frequently asked questions
What is the SHRM statistic about outdated ATS software and hiring delays?
A figure attributed to SHRM and widely repeated across HR-technology industry publications states that 68% of recruiting managers say a slow or outdated applicant tracking system causes hiring delays of 30% or more. We're citing this as the industry-standard, widely-referenced version of the statistic rather than linking a specific SHRM report we've independently verified — if you need the original primary source for a citation of your own, we'd recommend confirming directly with SHRM before relying on it for anything formal.
What is the typical time-to-fill for a role, according to SHRM data?
SHRM's Talent Access Report has previously put median time-to-fill at 44 days and average time-to-fill at 54 days for non-executive roles, with executive roles typically taking longer. These figures predate the current wave of AI-native screening and interviewing tools, so treat them as a baseline for what 'slow' looked like before this category of software existed, not a current-day benchmark.
Why do outdated ATS platforms specifically cause delays, rather than hiring being slow for other reasons?
Legacy applicant tracking systems were built primarily as a system of record — tracking where a candidate sits in a pipeline — not as an evaluation engine. They don't screen resumes with AI scoring, conduct interviews, or grade assessments themselves, so every one of those steps still depends on a recruiter's or interviewer's available hours. At any real applicant volume, that manual bottleneck is where the delay actually accumulates, regardless of how clean the tracking interface looks.
Does adding AI screening or AI interviews to a hiring process actually reduce time-to-fill?
Directionally, yes — automating the stages that previously required a recruiter's or interviewer's individual attention (reading each resume, scheduling and running each first-round call) removes the specific bottleneck the SHRM figure points to. JustInterview.ai's own internal platform data shows resumes screened in roughly 4 minutes for a batch of 500 and a reported 70% faster time-to-hire relative to a fully manual process — figures we disclose as internal platform data, not as a replication of the SHRM study.
Is JustInterview.ai an ATS?
No. An ATS tracks applications through pipeline stages but doesn't evaluate anyone — it's a system of record. JustInterview.ai actively screens resumes with AI, conducts structured AI interviews, and runs technical assessments, then hands a ranked shortlist to your team. Many teams keep an existing ATS as their system of record and use JustInterview.ai to do the evaluation work upstream of it.
Get started
See what removing the manual bottleneck actually looks like.
Start a $2.99 trial and screen, interview, and assess a real candidate pool — no manual review queue required.