# Talent Engineering Capstone Project: practice workbook
Talent Engineering Academy | An education initiative by Vitae
Edition 2026.09 | Updated 2026-09-24
Course: https://talentengineering.org/courses/talent-engineering-capstone

Build a complete hiring-system portfolio for a fictional organisation, then test it against a practical self-review rubric.

## Your deliverable
A six-part portfolio: workforce case, search strategy, assessment plan, data design, service runbook and evaluation report.

Use fictional information. Keep your completed work in your own secure notes. Exercises and capstone work are self-directed, not independently assessed.

## 1. Case assumptions and workforce decision

Your notes:



## 2. Outcome-based brief and evidence matrix

Your notes:



## 3. Market map, source log and outreach samples

Your notes:



## 4. Assessment plan, scorecards and accessibility

Your notes:



## 5. Data flow, risk register and operating runbook

Your notes:



## 6. Pilot measures, exception tests and reflective review

Your notes:



## Lesson exercises

### 1. Frame the capstone case and success criteria

Produce the charter, a three-scenario capacity plan and two role briefs. Budget 45 minutes, then identify what you would need to validate in a real organisation.

Your response:


Worked example: A strong charter records that five hires do not guarantee shift readiness because onboarding capacity and production approval remain dependencies. It assigns an operations owner to each and schedules a decision before offers are planned.

Self-review guidance: Self-review rubric: 0 means absent, 1 means asserted without evidence or owner, 2 means usable with assumptions and responsibilities, 3 means tested against an alternative scenario. Score scope, outcomes, capacity and requirements separately. Revise every zero before continuing.

### 2. Build the market and assessment portfolio

Produce a market map, two outreach drafts, a screening matrix, interview guide and one short work sample with a scoring rubric.

Your response:


Worked example: A transferable candidate has quality-control experience in food manufacturing. The assessment tests traceability and corrective-action reasoning rather than rejecting the person because their previous industry differs from Alder’s.

Self-review guidance: Score evidence traceability, search breadth, criterion alignment, consistent scoring and accessibility from 0 to 3. A score of 3 requires a documented challenge case that changed or validated your design. Do not award yourself full marks merely for completing a template.

### 3. Engineer the data flow and operating controls

Create a data diagram, permissions table, risk register, workflow specification and five exception-test results using fictional records.

Your response:


Worked example: A withdrawal arrives after a pack has been queued. The workflow checks the current candidate state immediately before sending, cancels the queued action and records the reason. A past approval cannot override the newer withdrawal.

Self-review guidance: Score data minimisation, permission boundaries, current-state checks, recovery and auditability from 0 to 3. Demonstrate at least one stopped action and one successful manual continuation. A diagram without test evidence should score no more than 2.

### 4. Evaluate the design and present its limitations

Submit the portfolio to your own records, complete the rubric and write a 300-word reflection on two weaknesses and the next validation step.

Your response:


Worked example: Synthetic results show preparation time falling from 30 to 20 minutes while corrections rise from 2 to 8 minutes. The report states net time fell from 32 to 28 minutes and still investigates the increased correction burden before recommending expansion.

Self-review guidance: The finished portfolio should have no missing essential element, explicit assumptions and a traceable decision for each major choice. Record your self-scores and reviewer comments separately. Completion is learning evidence, not proof of legal compliance or professional accreditation.

## Portfolio review
Check that your work is internally consistent, distinguishes facts from assumptions, names decision owners and explains its limitations. Revise gaps before using the method in real work.

## Further reading
- [CIPD: Recruitment](https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/factsheets/recruitment-factsheet/): Professional context for the recruitment lifecycle.

Original educational scenarios. References provide further reading and do not imply endorsement. Check current official rules and appropriate professional advice for real legal, financial or regulated decisions.