Why Firms Are Moving to On-Demand Recruiting
Hiring doesn’t break because firms don’t know what they’re doing.
It breaks because the available options don’t fit how hiring actually works.
Most AEC firms get stuck between two options that don’t quite fit.
Staffing agencies charge 20–30% per placement and are incentivized to fill fast, not right. An internal recruiter costs $100,000–$120,000+ per year in salary, benefits, and tools — hard to justify when hiring comes in waves.
Most architecture, engineering, and construction firms don’t need a full-time recruiter — and don’t want to pay 20–30% per hire. On-demand recruiting exists to solve that gap.
Hierarchy Search exists in the space between those two options. You get dedicated recruiting support embedded in your process, at a cost that scales with your actual hiring activity.
One client. Real numbers.
~$755,000 in salaries hired
~$28,000 total recruiting cost
~3.7% effective cost per hire
vs. 20–30% through a traditional agency
That’s what it looks like when a client prioritizes hiring and moves candidates through the process.
What recruiting actually costs
Based on a typical engagement of 1–2 openings. Hierarchy Search cost typically falls between 7–12% of first-year salary — depending on how quickly you move candidates through the process.
| Traditional Agency | Hierarchy Search | |
|---|---|---|
| $100k hire | $20,000 – $30,000 | ~$10,000 |
| $120k hire | $24,000 – $36,000 | ~$12,000 |
| 2 hires at $100k | $40,000 – $60,000 | ~$20,000 |
| How you’re billed | Per placement, after the hire | Flat weekly retainer |
| Risk per hire | Fee owed regardless of outcome — a wrong hire is expensive to find out | No placement fee — easier to take a chance on the right person |
| What you own | Nothing — pipeline and candidates stay with the agency | Candidate database you can hire from again at no additional cost |
Why Firms Choose This Model
Cost aligns with activity
You pay when you are hiring, not when you are not. During slow periods, pause. During active stretches, scale up. No fixed overhead sitting idle.
You pay an active weekly rate when we’re searching, and a lower maintenance rate when you’re not. No placement fees. Ever.
Embedded, not detached
We post jobs under your brand, source directly, and represent your firm — not a staffing agency. Candidates see your company, not an intermediary. The pipeline belongs to you when the engagement ends.
Built around AEC
We have spent over a decade recruiting specifically in architecture, engineering, and construction. We know the roles, the firms, the candidate pool, and the market. We do not need you to explain your org chart or the difference between a Job Captain and a Project Architect.
Pipeline Maintenance
Some firms aren’t in active hiring mode — but they know growth is coming and they don’t want to start from zero when it does. For those firms, there’s a lower-intensity version of the engagement we call Pipeline Maintenance.
At $2,500/month, we post your roles, maintain inbound applicant flow, and screen anyone who looks like a fit. We’re not running active outreach specific to your roles — but when we come across the right person during other searches, we talk to them about your firm and push them forward. Over time, that builds a candidate pool of people who are already qualified and already interested.
When the need comes up — a new project, a sudden opening — you’re not starting from scratch. You go to that pipeline first.
One client ran this model through all of 2024 without making a single hire. In 2025, when new projects started landing and they needed to staff up fast, we went directly to the pipeline we’d spent a year building — and placed three to four people in quick succession. The 2024 investment made the 2025 hires nearly immediate.
Pipeline Maintenance works when you know growth is coming but aren’t ready to pull the trigger yet. For firms that want to stay connected to the talent market without committing to a full active search, it’s a smart way to stay ahead.
Explore more: Common Questions · Agency vs. Internal vs. On-Demand