One of the biggest mistakes I see in contingent workforce programs is measuring supplier activity instead of supplier performance. It is easy to track how many candidates a vendor submitted, how quickly they responded to a requisition, or how many roles they touched in a quarter. Those numbers are useful, but on their own, they do not tell you whether a supplier is actually creating value. A vendor can be incredibly busy and still not be effective.
For me, the real question is not, “How much activity did this supplier generate?” It is, “What happened because of that activity?” Did the candidates move forward? Did the hiring manager want to interview them? Were the rates competitive? Did the supplier help fill a difficult role? Did the person stay and perform once they were placed? Those are the outcomes that matter because they tell you whether the supplier is helping the business, not simply participating in the process.
Submission volume is probably the easiest example. A supplier that submits 100 candidates may look more engaged than one that submits 25, but that comparison means very little if only two of those 100 candidates move forward while 15 of the 25 from the other supplier are shortlisted. High submission volume can actually create more work for recruiters and hiring managers if the quality is not there. I would much rather see fewer, stronger candidates than a high volume of resumes that require more time to review and ultimately go nowhere.
The same is true with speed. Response time matters, especially in a competitive talent market, but speed without quality is not a win. A supplier that sends three resumes within an hour may appear highly responsive, but if none of those candidates match the role, that activity did not move the organization any closer to a hire. I would rather have a supplier take the time to understand the requirement, validate the candidate, and send someone who has a real chance of moving forward.
That is why I think programs need to look deeper at measures such as shortlist rates, interview conversion, placement rates, rate competitiveness, retention, and hiring manager satisfaction. Those metrics tell a much more complete story. If a supplier consistently submits candidates who move to interview, accepts feedback, adjusts quickly, and places people who remain successful in the role, that is a high-performing supplier even if their raw submission numbers are lower than others in the program.
Cost should also be part of that outcome conversation. A supplier can have strong fill numbers and still create unnecessary cost if every candidate comes in at the top of the approved range. On the other side, a supplier may not be the lowest markup provider, but if they consistently deliver qualified talent at competitive overall rates and shorten the time a position remains open, they may be creating significantly more value. Supplier performance should consider the total result, not one isolated metric.
I also think outcomes become especially important when evaluating niche or specialized suppliers. These vendors may never compete with the largest firms in overall placement volume, but they may have exceptional success in a specific technology, geography, or skill set. If a supplier only receives 20 relevant opportunities in a year but consistently delivers on the hardest ones, their value should not be lost because another vendor produced more total activity across the program.
None of this means activity metrics should disappear. They are still important diagnostic tools. If a supplier is not responding to requisitions, rarely submitting candidates, or disengaging from the program, that is information worth understanding. But activity should be the beginning of the conversation, not the final score. The purpose of measuring activity should be to help explain performance, not to replace it.
In my view, supplier scorecards should answer a simple question: is this supplier making the program better? Are they improving access to talent, increasing quality, helping control cost, supporting hiring managers, and ultimately delivering successful placements? If the answer is yes, the metrics should show it. If the answer is no, a large number of submissions or quick response times should not hide that.
The strongest supplier programs reward results. They give more opportunities to vendors that consistently deliver value, coach suppliers that show potential but need improvement, and reduce access for those that create activity without outcomes. When suppliers know they are being measured on what they actually deliver, the conversation changes from “How much did we do?” to “What did we accomplish?”
And that is ultimately the measurement that matters.
When you pour your heart into building something authentic, something rooted in partnership, transparency, and measurable impact, it is deeply rewarding to see it recognized. Koncert IT Solutions was featured in Staffing Industry Analysts’ 2025 MSP Global Landscape and Differentiators Report, a showcase highlighting the world’s most forward-thinking Managed Service Providers. To be ranked among leading MSPs […]
Supplier consolidation is often positioned as an easy win: fewer vendors, more leverage, better discounts, and less administrative work. In many cases, there is real value in simplifying a supplier program, especially when too many vendors are receiving opportunities without producing results. But I also think there is a point where consolidation stops creating efficiency […]
One of the biggest mistakes I see in contingent workforce programs is measuring supplier activity instead of supplier performance. It is easy to track how many candidates a vendor submitted, how quickly they responded to a requisition, or how many roles they touched in a quarter. Those numbers are useful, but on their own, they […]
I have spent a lot of time in and around contingent workforce programs, and one conversation continues to come up: how many vendors should we really have? It sounds like a simple question, but in my view, it is often the wrong one. There is absolutely such a thing as having too many suppliers in […]
RFPs are designed to bring structure and clarity to an important decision. On paper, the process makes sense. Define the requirements, evaluate multiple providers, compare responses, and select the best partner. But in the contingent workforce space, the outcome does not always reflect the intention. Many organizations go through a detailed RFP process and still end up with […]
Most organizations think about attracting talent as an internal effort. Employer brand, job descriptions, and recruiting teams all play a role. But in a contingent workforce program, there is another layer that is often overlooked. Your vendors are your front line. They are the ones speaking to candidates every day. They shape how your company is positioned in the […]
There is no shortage of great presentations in the contingent workforce space. Every MSP and supplier can walk into a room with a polished deck, strong messaging, and a sales team that knows how to tell a compelling story. On paper, it all makes sense. The strategy sounds right. The model looks proven. The results […]
Flexibility has become one of the most common words used in the contingent workforce. It shows up in nearly every conversation, every proposal, and every strategy discussion. Flexible workforce. Flexible staffing. Flexible solutions. It sounds right and it sounds necessary. But when you look closer, many programs that claim to be flexible are still operating in very rigid ways. Most contingent workforce […]
Most contingent workforce conversations start with speed. How quickly can we find the right talent, how fast can we fill the role, how do we keep things moving. Those are important questions. But what happens after the contractor starts is where the real outcome is determined. The first 90 days of a contractor often set the tone for the entire engagement. Yet it is […]
Over the years, I have heard the term strategic partner used in countless conversations. It appears in contracts, quarterly business reviews, supplier presentations, and executive meetings. Clients use it to describe suppliers, and suppliers use it to describe clients. The question I continue to come back to is simple: What does it actually mean? Too often, […]
As EVP at Koncert IT Solutions, I spend a lot of time talking with clients about their contingent workforce programs. Most of the conversations start in the same place. They are trying to move faster, control costs, and improve quality. But as we get deeper into it, two things almost always come up. Lack of visibility and a vendor […]
