- How to Measure Time Saved with Job Posting Automation (Even Without a Time Study) - September 8, 2025
- Legal Disclaimers in Job Postings: What to Do When the Lawyers Come Calling - September 5, 2025
- Why Your Job Posting Might Not Be OFCCP Compliant (and How to Fix It) - September 4, 2025
You don’t need a stopwatch to know you’re wasting time.
If your team is still manually rewriting job descriptions, you’re already feeling it — the lag, the repetition, the click-here, copy-there rhythm that sucks time and energy out of the day. But what if you could *show* that time saved without launching a formal time study? That’s what this post is all about.
Time Studies Are Great (But Not Required)
Let’s be honest. Most of us don’t have the bandwidth to run a before-and-after time study. You’d need consistent tracking, historical benchmarks, and a team willing to be tracked while they work. It’s not impossible, it’s just not realistic for a lot of TA teams already stretched thin.
But here’s the good news: You don’t need a spreadsheet full of timestamps to start estimating time savings. You just need a little bit of logic and some rough numbers from the people doing the work.
How We Helped a Client Ballpark It
One of our healthcare clients recently asked us if we had any data on time savings after implementing job posting automation with Ongig. We didn’t run a time study with them, but during a live review, we talked through it together.
Here’s what we found:
- They were reviewing 100% of job descriptions manually before Ongig.
- Post-Ongig, about 80% of their jobs flowed cleanly through the template (no edits needed).
- The remaining 20% still needed “reviews” for unmatched content.
- They estimated it took about 3–5 minutes to review each unmatched job.
- Adding delays and syncing to Taleo ? Maybe another 5–8 minutes.
Let’s do some quick math:
Before automation: 100% of 4,000 jobs reviewed manually = ~40,000 minutes (667 hours)
After automation: Only 20% (800 jobs) reviewed manually = ~8,000 minutes (133 hours)
That’s a rough time savings of 534 hours.
How You Can Estimate Time Savings
You don’t need AI to do this part (although we love it when it helps). Just ask your recruiters or HR team:
- How many jobs do we post annually?
- How long does it take to review or rewrite each job?
- What percentage of jobs are still being touched manually?
- What systems (like Taleo, Workday, etc) slow down the process?
Even with ballpark numbers, you can start telling a clearer story about what automation frees up. And how it helps your team focus on more strategic work.
Sometimes we get so hung up on proving ROI that we delay actually getting the ROI. Job posting automation doesn’t remove every manual step. But it can significantly reduce the needless ones. And sometimes, a rough estimate is more powerful than a 30-page time study your exec team might never read.
Why I Wrote This
We built Ongig to remove the guesswork and grunt work from job descriptions. This story came directly from a conversation with a client who wanted to understand the ROI of automation, and didn’t have a formal study to lean on. If you’re in the same boat, request a demo to see how Ongig can help you fix the messy parts of job posting and get consistent, compliant job content out faster.
FAQs
How does job posting automation work?
It uses templates, AI, and rules to generate or improve job descriptions before they’re published to your ATS or career site.
Can I still edit jobs manually?
Yes. Most systems, including Ongig, allow for manual edits when needed — automation just reduces how often you need to do it.
What if our recruiters override the automated template?
That’s a common issue. We often help clients lock down certain sections and train teams on how to use the templates properly.
Do I need engineering support to estimate ROI?
Nope. Just ask your team how many jobs they touch and how long it takes. Multiply it out, and you’ll see the potential savings.
Is job posting automation only useful for large enterprises?
Not at all. Mid-size and growing teams benefit just as much — especially if they want to improve quality and consistency without adding headcount.
