
Before migrating a recruitment CRM, agree what must survive the move: candidate identity, job relationships, activity history and the evidence behind important updates. A successful row count is useful, but it cannot show whether a note was attached to the right person.
Kepler CRM, listed in the Singapore software collection, is a concrete starting point for this evaluation. Its official description includes CV migration, reviewable record suggestions, evidence-backed matching and workspace export. The checklist below is a proposed acceptance process, not a claim that we performed a migration into the service.
Build a sample that can expose mistakes
Use fictional or appropriately approved records. Include two candidates with the same name, one person with a changed email address and a candidate who applied to two jobs. Give each record a stable source identifier that you can trace through the trial.
Add varied documents: a simple CV, a document with multiple columns and a note containing a correction. The objective is not to overwhelm the importer. It is to reveal whether identity matching, document interpretation and relationship mapping behave differently from what your team expects.
Keep a small reference sheet of the intended result. Someone who did not prepare the export should be able to inspect a destination record and decide whether it is correct.
Separate extraction from interpretation
A parser may extract a date or skill from a document. The agency still needs to decide what that value means in its workflow. A former employer is different from a current employer; a skill mentioned in a project is different from a confirmed job requirement.
For every important mapped field, record the source location, destination field and transformation rule. Preserve the original text where the interpretation could reasonably be disputed. An empty value should remain distinguishable from a confirmed negative answer.
Ask how corrections are applied after the initial load. Re-running a file should have an agreed outcome: update the intended records, create a separate version or stop for review. An unexplained second copy is not an acceptable recovery strategy.
Exercise the review boundary
Create a fictional conversation that changes a candidate's availability. Have one reviewer accept the update and another reject a different suggestion. Check what is stored, who can see the decision and whether the previous value remains understandable.
Then introduce conflicting information from two sources. The demonstration should make the conflict visible rather than quietly treating the latest imported string as the truth. Define which staff member resolves the conflict and how the decision is recorded.
Matching results deserve a similar inspection. Select a job criterion and follow the supporting evidence back to the candidate material. A score without accessible context is difficult to challenge or correct when the source information changes.
Verify relationships and exports
Trace one candidate through an application, a note, an attachment and a task. Confirm that each object belongs to the intended record and that a user with a narrower role sees only the appropriate information.
Export the sample before approving the wider move. Inspect whether identifiers, timestamps, attachments and relationships can be understood outside the destination interface. Keep the export instructions with the acceptance record; a promise of portability is less useful than a known recovery procedure.
Agree the cutover decision
Document unresolved mappings, the person accepting each one and the point after which changes should stop in the old system. Decide how late-arriving updates will be reconciled. Preserve a recoverable source copy and a clear route back if the agreed acceptance conditions fail.
The Singapore workflow shortlist explains why this deeper process is appropriate for a shared operational system. A CRM migration is complete when the team can use and explain the resulting records, not merely when an import progress bar reaches its end.


