I look at ReCo from two sides. As a senior consultant, I care about the quality of every recommendation I send to a client. As CEO, I care about how my team works to get there — how consistent the process is, how much consultant time is spent on documentation, and whether we use AI in a way I can defend to clients.
A good recommendation cannot be generic. It needs to show the client why a candidate fits, where the risks are, and what to pay attention to. That is the standard. The question is how much time and effort it takes us to reach it.
Before ReCo, one recommendation report could take me and my consultants 90-120 minutes. Now it usually takes 30-45.
The biggest value is not only speed. It is that the whole conversation stays connected.
The job description, CV, notes, transcript, and final report all live in one place. The same flow that helps me run the conversation also helps me write it up afterwards. I do not rebuild context from memory or pull notes back together from three different tools.
That makes it easier to return to a candidate days later, prepare for a presentation to a client, or compare two finalists without losing the detail that mattered in the interview.
ReCo is useful even when a candidate does not move forward to a recommendation. We still want to keep useful information about that person for future opportunities. Short structured summaries let us build internal knowledge about candidates over time, instead of losing it after every conversation.
"Not every conversation becomes a recommendation, but every good conversation should produce reusable knowledge."
In a recruitment agency, consultant time is the most expensive thing we have. When senior consultants spend that time rewriting notes, moving information between tools, or rebuilding context from memory, it stops being knowledge work and starts being administration. That is real operational cost.
ReCo reduces it. It also does something else that matters more to me as a manager: it gives the team one workflow, not a set of individual workarounds.
That means I know how reports are being written before I read them. I know what tools my consultants are using to handle candidate data. I know the process is the same whether the conversation happened on Monday or Friday, whether the consultant is senior or just joined the team.
That is what makes the process scalable, easier to improve, and easier to explain to a client.
We handle sensitive candidate data every day. The moment AI enters the workflow, every senior recruiter has to ask the same question: what exactly is going into the model, and can I defend that to a client and to a regulator?
ReCo answers that question at the workflow level, not at the level of individual consultant discipline.
CV blinding removes personal data before it reaches AI. The transcript editor lets us cut what should not be processed — a sensitive aside, a personal detail — and keep the rest. ReCo works from transcripts only, not from audio or video, so we are not collecting more candidate data than we need.
For me as CEO, that is what unlocks responsible AI use across the team. It is not a policy on a wiki. It is a control that lives inside the tool every consultant uses every day.
"I know my consultants have the right tools to handle candidate data responsibly while still benefiting from AI in their work. That is not something every recruitment tech gives you."
I would recommend ReCo to recruitment companies that care about three things at the same time: the speed of moving from interview to recommendation, the consistency of how a team gets there, and the responsibility of how AI is used along the way.
In executive search, the value is not only writing faster. It is being able to give the client a more grounded recommendation, and knowing the whole team works the same way to get there.
Mark Kure Hansen
CEO & Senior Consultant, Kure Search