This manual is for HRM-FPX5060 Assessment 2, start to submission. Assessment 2 of HRM-FPX5060, Sourcing and Managing Talent in the Workplace, is where the job analysis becomes a hiring process with quantities in it. The assessment usually asks you to build a sourcing plan sized to a real number of hires and choose selection methods that between them cover the attributes the job requires. Below is the method our tutors use, a structure that maps to the criteria, and an annotated sample excerpt. Prefer to hand it off? A premium original sample for this exact assessment comes back in 24 to 48 hours, revised free until it meets the guide. Your courseroom may print this as HRM FPX 5060 Assessment 2 or HRM5060 Assessment 2; it is the same deliverable, and HRM-FPX5060 Assessment 2 is what this manual walks through.
One honesty note before the manual: Capella revises courses and scoring guides over time, so always write to the exact scoring guide attached to your assessment in the courseroom. The course identity above is verified on capella.edu; the method and structure below are our tutors' approach to it, not Capella's official rubric text.
How HRM-FPX5060 Assessment 2 is scored
There are no letter grades in this model. Each criterion is placed at one of four levels, and those descriptions tell you precisely what to produce:
| Level | What it means on a sourcing and selection plan |
|---|---|
| Distinguished | The funnel carries real conversion rates and is sized backwards from the hires owed, every method is justified against the attribute it measures and the evidence for it, and gaps and redundancies in the coverage are both named. |
| Proficient | A workable plan with channels, methods and a rationale for each. Complete, and unable to promise a specific number of hires from a specific volume of applications. |
| Basic | A list of job boards and a list of interview stages. Recognisable as recruitment, unusable as a plan, because nothing in it is sized. |
| Non-performance | The selection methods are never connected to the requirements they are supposed to assess, which leaves the process with no job-relatedness argument at all. |
The habit this deliverable is really teaching is planning backwards. A director does not ask for a recruitment campaign, they ask for eighteen technicians by the end of the quarter, and the plan that can convert that request into an application volume and a budget is the one that gets funded.
The HRM-FPX5060 Assessment 2 method, step by step
-
Start from the hires owed and work backwards
Take the number of hires requested and divide by the conversion rates the organization actually achieved last year. Applications per hire is the headline figure, and it is arithmetic rather than opinion. If historical rates do not exist, use a defensible published figure, label it as an assumption, and say how the plan changes if the real rate is worse.
-
Calculate each stage rate separately
Screen-through, interview-to-offer and offer acceptance behave differently and break for different reasons. A plan reporting only applications per hire cannot tell a director whether the problem is attraction, screening or the offer, and locating the constriction is the analytical work the criterion is buying.
-
Cost the plan and say what you counted
External spend plus internal cost divided by hires gives cost per hire, and the figure is meaningless until you list which costs are inside it. Advertising, agency fees, referral bonuses, recruiter time, hiring manager time and travel are all legitimate inclusions, and different inclusions produce different numbers that cannot be compared.
-
Build the method matrix and read its gaps
One row for each requirement from the job analysis, one column for each selection method, a mark where a method genuinely assesses that requirement. Empty rows are requirements nobody is checking. Crowded columns are three instruments measuring the same trait at three times the cost. Both findings belong in the paper.
-
Justify each method on validity, not familiarity
Criterion-related validity means scores correlate with later performance, content validity means the method samples the work itself, and construct validity means it measures the attribute it claims to. Say which kind of evidence you are relying on for each method. Coefficients from older meta-analyses have been re-examined and revised, so quote a number with its source and its year rather than as a constant.
-
Sequence the process and price the sequence
Cheap and broad instruments first, expensive and narrow ones last, because the order decides the total cost of the campaign as much as the method choice does. Then self-score each criterion D, P, B or N, check every rate and total by hand, and allow two business days for faculty evaluation.
A structure that maps to the criteria
A sourcing and selection deliverable at this level sits near these lengths in our tutors' planning, which Capella does not prescribe. Follow your own guide where the weighting differs.
| Section | What it must do | Guide |
|---|---|---|
| The requisition | How many hires, by when, in which locations, and the requirements they must satisfy. | ~150 words |
| The funnel | Historical conversion rates at each stage, the volume required, and the assumptions declared. | ~300 words |
| Channels and cost | Where the volume comes from, what each channel costs, and cost per hire with its inclusions listed. | ~250 words |
| Method matrix | Requirements against methods, with gaps and redundancies both identified in the text. | ~300 words |
| Validity evidence | The type of validity relied on for each method, cited with source and year. | ~250 words |
| Sequence and references | The order of steps, the reason for it, the total cost, and current APA both ways. | ~200 words |
Annotated sample excerpt
An original model excerpt from our team, showing the register that scores at the top of the guide. It is study material: learn the moves, then write your own version.
Last year the technician requisition family drew 742 applications, of which 118 passed screening at 15.9 percent, 51 reached interview, 22 received offers and 16 accepted, an acceptance rate of 72.7 percent.1 That is 46.4 applications per hire, so the eighteen technicians the service director has asked for require roughly 835 applications, and the current channel mix produced 742 over a full year.2 At last year's $38,200 of external spend and $19,600 of internal cost, cost per hire was $3,613 counting advertising, agency fees, referral bonuses and recruiter time but excluding hiring manager hours, and eighteen hires at that rate is $65,025 before any new channel is added.3
- 1Reports every stage of the funnel rather than the headline, so a reader can see which stage is narrow. Screening at 15.9 percent is where this process is actually losing people.
- 2Converts the director's request into an application volume, then places it beside what the current channels deliver. The gap is the finding, and it arrives without a single adjective.
- 3States cost per hire and then lists what is inside it and what is not. An unqualified cost per hire is a number two people will compute differently and both call correct.
The full premium sample for your exact assessment, written fresh to your scoring guide and issue, is free to request. Study it, revise it into your own voice, and submit work you understand.
The five mistakes that cost Distinguished
- Channels named, volumes never estimated. A plan that cannot promise a number of applications cannot promise a number of hires.
- One blended conversion rate. Collapsing the funnel hides the stage that is actually failing, which is the only thing the plan needed to find.
- Cost per hire with no inclusion list. The figure changes by thousands depending on what you counted, so an unqualified one compares to nothing.
- Methods chosen because they are familiar. A criterion asking for justification wants the attribute assessed and the evidence, not the organization's habit.
- Validity coefficients quoted as constants. The corrections behind those figures have been re-examined, so a number without a source and a year is already a liability.
Pre-submission checklist
- The plan is sized backwards from the number of hires requested
- Each funnel stage carries its own conversion rate, with assumptions labelled as assumptions
- Cost per hire is stated together with the costs included and excluded
- Every requirement from the job analysis appears as a row in the method matrix
- Gaps and redundancies in method coverage are both named in the prose
- Validity evidence cited with source and year, and current APA verified in both directions
Sourcing plan due?
Send the scoring guide, the role and any funnel figures you hold, even a single year of application counts. Eight people work the requisition with you, and one premium original sample lands inside 24 to 48 hours with the funnel sized, the matrix built, and revisions free until the criteria are satisfied.