BUILD SCALABLE HIRING OPERATIONS WITH VISIER WORKFORCE AI
See which hires perform. Not just what they cost.
Connect sourcing, hiring and performance data, then double down on what works.
Trusted by 85,000+ complex organizations
A siloed hiring process has business costs
True retention costs are unclear if the data foundation is fragmented
Static data
You can sometimes see what’s going on after it becomes a trend (like exit rate). But not what’s actually working, in real time.
Decisions without context
Current pipeline timing and exit rate aren’t reflected in decisions. Cost-per-hire tends to lead the conversation instead of hiring ROI.
Execution blind-spots
How new hires progress depends solely on manager readiness. There’s zero visibility into disengagement. Until it’s a retention metric.
Stacking costs
When retention eventually takes a hit, there are questions. Which mostly don’t have answers because of the shaky foundation.
Mishires make even bigger waves now
Teams are mandated to move faster, meaning missteps carry inflated costs
Headcount budgets are under pressure. TA is hiring for roles that didn’t exist before. This can create capability gaps that get the wrong kind of attention.
And this doesn’t get better on its own. Current architecture can’t scale change.
Gap: data blindspots hide signals that should actually govern hiring strategy
Gap: even if TA could see post-hire performance data, that data needs workforce context to drive meaningful impact
These are the gaps Visier Workforce AI was built to fill.
VISIER’S WORKFORCE INTELLIGENCE PLATFORM
Link hires to outcomes that earn exec
Built for adaptive workforce change. Powered by 16 years of HR expertise.
Workforce intelligence compounds. It never resets.
Visier Workforce AI supports 3 interdependent functions.
UnderstandSee the full picture
Follow new hires from initial contact to eventual performance. Link data to outcomes and understand what works.
PlanInvest in what works
Invest in what’s actually working. Show costs that Finance can bring to a budget review so leaders can act on a quality-adjusted view of hiring cost.
ActivateScale and prove
Get hiring data to managers when they need it. Respond to disengagement flags early. Set baselines to measure impact.
Powered by Visier’s proprietary Context Engine
Workforce context is the layer most orgs are missing
Decisions with auditable reasoning
Humans and AI understand impact, generate scenarios and roll out at scale
GenAI tools and agents
Follows rules set by the Context Engine on continuously-updating input
Workforce Context Engine
Unifies your people data with workforce-specific rules, definitions and guardrails
Workforce data
All your people data, macro insights and HR science as raw input
QUALITY-ADJUSTED SPEND
50% claimed
Freddie Mac's five-minute audit found a vendor claiming 50% pipeline impact was really contributing 10%, enabling renegotiation on verified data.
QUALITY BY CHANNEL
85% retention
When Kong connected its ATS hiring data to HRIS retention data, direct applicants showed an 85% retention rate. Enabling fast-tracking of that channel.
PROACTIVE HIRING
$3M saved
Providence used vacancy forecasting to hire more than 2,000 caregivers ahead of a labor shortage. Avoiding the higher cost of reactive, shortage-driven hiring.
People Analytics 101
Turning Insight Into Impact: 10+ People Analytics Stories That Drive Business Results
Learn how leading companies use people analytics to solve workforce challenges like turnover, manager effectiveness, and more.
Governed, secure, makes IT happy
Common questions
Our ATS already shows us pipeline volume and time-to-fill. Isn't that enough?
ATS data shows what happened in the funnel but not what happened after. It won't show whether candidates who dropped at screening would have made strong hires. Or whether those who make it through are performing and staying twelve months later.
Shouldn’t we should wait for our HCM vendor? Workday already has analytics.
Workday records that a hire happened. It wasn't built to connect what happened in the funnel to whether that hire is performing or staying, or to get that insight to the people making sourcing decisions. These are complementary, not competing, tools.
What if our data isn't ready for this kind of analysis?
No hiring data is perfectly clean. Most TA teams already consolidate ATS, performance, and retention data manually through analysts. The intent is to normalize and govern that data as part of the platform, not require it to be pristine first.
What if we don't have budget for another tool without a clear ROI case?
You're already spending heavily on sourcing, agencies, and analyst time to piece together partial answers. The ask is to redirect spend toward what the process has produced instead of adding cost on top of what you're already paying to stay uncertain.
Cost-per-hire is already our key metric. Why isn't that enough?
Cost-per-hire tells you what a hire cost to acquire, not what it cost you afterward. A cheap hire who leaves in eight months or underperforms carries a real cost multiplier that standard TA metrics don't capture, and that gap is exactly what erodes trust in the TA budget at review time.
We've bought analytics tools before and they didn't deliver. How will this be different?
Most of those were dashboards that gave better visibility without changing what recruiters or hiring managers did differently. The distinction that matters is whether sourcing and processing data connects to action, not whether it produces another report nobody circles back to.
Won't this just tell us what we already suspect about which sources underperform?
Often it tells you the opposite of what you suspect. A source or vendor can look strong on volume and weak on quality, or vice versa, and without the data connecting sourcing to post-hire outcomes, that gap stays invisible until it's already expensive.
Will this require rebuilding our data pipeline or adding integration work?
It's meant to sit on top of the ATS, HCM and performance systems already in place, connecting them rather than replacing them. Worth pressure-testing directly against your specific systems and governance requirements.
Won't recruiters and hiring managers see this as another layer of oversight?
The intent is to surface where the process is losing good candidates or where coaching would help, not to generate a scorecard for individual blame. Framed well, it's diagnostic for the process, not a performance review of any one recruiter.
