1. Phone screen - 15 min, basically logistics of the process and making sure the person knows what job they've applied for an is interested
2. Hiring manager talks to candidate, goes through CV and ambition + any burning technical questions / initial screening
3. Panel interview, with two hours do think about a problem and discussion with a panel of managers and peers (challenge here is to make it as low pressure as possible)
My justification is that 1. I want to make sure the person is interested before wasting time on them, 2. I want to talk to them, 3. I don't want to make a unilateral decision and want 3-5 others to interact with them. It's hard to do much less than that IMO if you are hiring for part of a team.
At my last job, we also did an up front coding test, which unfortunately I have to agree with in this specific case. For context, this was for a client facing technical role, so we wanted someone with client experience/ business skills who also had legit technical qualifications. For this kind of job, there are far too many people that are all talk think that a python tutorial they did is enough to put it in their resume (equally true for excel when I used to work in consulting). We need some quick way to make sure people have the right skillset.
For experienced hires in pure dev roles, I think coding interviews are less relevant, and quickly become pointless. I have a dev team working for me now that I hired based on their past experience and would have felt ridiculous asking them to do a coding test.