Yes: like I said, the goal was to get results back to candidates faster.
The biggest complaint we'd been getting from candidates before work samples was that our process took too long. Our goal became to get the entire process done under two weeks (from its worst point, a month or two earlier, of 1.5 months, when someone finally posted an anonymous complaint to Glassdoor about us).
After iterating a couple times, we could reliably go from first contact to hire/no hire, with a motivated candidates (ie: one who would work with us to schedule the interview process aggressively) inside of a single week.
As a candidate, I would be a little wary of this process. You're asking me to put in multiple hours of work, but you only put in 7 minutes. So the incentives are misaligned: you are incented to give these challenges to many people, even if they have a low chance of passing through. But as a candidate, I don't want to sped multiple hours if I have a low chance of passing through. This is one reason why full-day on-site interviews aren't so bad - if I've gotten to that stage, I'm probably pretty likely to get an offer.
First, I don't concede the idea that this is a concern I need to ameliorate, because the work-sample process consumes fewer hours of candidate time than the conventional interview does, and, better still, consumes those times as, when, and where the candidate chooses to make them available: an hour a night during the week, say. Do the work from your favorite quiet bar. Do it during your coffee break.
I am spending a lot of time these days talking to people interviewing in the valley, and what I'm seeing is that the norm candidates are subjected to is 7+ hours of 6-7 on-site interviews. Candidates have to go through all the interviews, even if the first interview has effectively ejected them from the process.
Compared to that horrid process, I don't believe I have to justify anything about my process.
But, if you read downthread, you'll see that we in fact did a lot to ameliorate the (bogus, I think) concern that we were incentivized to soak up hopeless effort from lots of people.
I was thinking something similar. When one party can waste the other party's time at little cost to their own, the situation can be abused. If a job ad wants you to submit to a test before you even talk to a hiring manager, this is a signal that the employer doesn't care about wasting your time. I can see the advantages to automating the hiring process but as a candidate I am less inclined to engage with a party that has no "skin in the game".
Think of the design world:
Potential client "A" asks multiple desperate artists to work on spec in hopes that they will get the commission.
Potential client "B" call you up and talks to you, sends you some napkin sketches and generally engages with you for an hour before asking you to do a design.
Both clients want you to do a design (test) but one clearly doesn't have any skin in the game.
Assuming you're a decent designer, which client do you respond to?
