I do not even bother with resumes anymore. I have found much more effective ways to get noticed. If, on your side of the coin, you also find resumes ineffective, I'm curious why you cling to the practice?
Our hiring procedures are set by HR. We have to review and rank resumes on a yes/no criteria (the same criteria that appears in the job advert). Then, we can choose how many people to interview, but they must be in sorted order based on resume ranking.
In the interview we have to ask the same questions of all candidates. So we can't go from their resume and say "tell me about this project X on your resume". Instead we have to ask generic questions, and if they don't refer to their resume projects, that's a problem.
We can do skill tests, as long as they are "objective" and all candidates get the same skill test.
So my approach is basically interview everyone who meets the bare minimum criteria, make sure they bring up relevant resume projects in the interview, and then hit them hard with skill tests, and sort from there. Seems to be an acceptable "work around" to the fairly rigid and heavy HR prescribed hiring process.
I don't see it as a luxury. The fact is that resumes just don't work very well as a marketing tool for the amount of effort they take. There are better ways to go about it, in my opinion and experience. There is a very good reason why Apple doesn't give you the "resume" of their devices and I stay away from resumes for the same reason. Finding a job is just sales and marketing, nothing more.
