It really depends on which end of the transaction you are talking about. If you are willing to insulate the job seeker from the broken stuff then you've 'fixed' that half of the problem from their perspective. In a perfect world, a total rethinking of the whole process would be much better but unless you can get N number of companies to buy in to that, then solving the problem through an abstraction layer might be the best bet.
The abstraction layer requires the company to buy in (politically, not just monetarily). If you've been around the Fortune 500 at all, it's very common to have large-ish, very powerful HR organizations. Taking something very fundamental away from them - the candidate pipeline - would be really unpalatable and controversial because it takes away about half the organization and a good chunk of the supply side.
You aren't wrong, I'm just stating why it's not happening.
No, and I'm not criticizing you or anything. I'm just saying it isn't the least bit easy in the sense that a lot of these startups have chosen to go after the parts of the process where they can get some kind of foothold and make money.
Even if you can get the company to buy into the broken nature of its talent pipeline, there's a lot of human capital consulting out there and the top tier firms haven't quite bought in to the talent pipeline as a(n external) service concept yet. While the natural idea might be to get into the human capital consulting game to fix this, it's really hard for little firms to get into large companies, because as they say, nobody ever got fired for bringing in Mercer, Aon Hewitt, Towers Watson, Deloitte, etc (the "top" HC consulting firms).
If you can't tell, I care about this quite a bit. It impacts my long term effectiveness as a manager.
