# Talent Engineering Fundamentals: practice workbook Talent Engineering Academy | An education initiative by Vitae Edition 2026.09 | Updated 2026-09-24 Course: https://talentengineering.org/courses/talent-engineering-fundamentals Connect hiring outcomes, evidence, people and systems, then design and evaluate a small recruitment improvement. ## Your deliverable A one-page improvement charter with a baseline, decision owner and evaluation plan. Use fictional information. Keep your completed work in your own secure notes. Exercises and capstone work are self-directed, not independently assessed. ## 1. Business outcome and who benefits Your notes: ## 2. Current process and observed constraint Your notes: ## 3. Evidence, source and uncertainty Your notes: ## 4. Proposed change and accountable owner Your notes: ## 5. Baseline, guardrail and stop condition Your notes: ## 6. Pilot result and next decision Your notes: ## Lesson exercises ### 1. Start with the recruitment outcome Choose a fictional role. Write three outcomes the new hire must deliver and one evidence question for each. Mark every requirement as essential or preferred. Your response: ### 2. Map the work before automating it Map six steps in a search. Choose one repeated task, identify its owner and describe the check required before its output is used. Your response: ### 3. Combine AI with accountable decisions Write a small improvement plan: the task, current friction, proposed AI assistance, required human review and two measures of success. Your response: ### 4. Define the system boundary Write the boundary and charter for a fictional expansion requiring four technicians. Identify two dependencies outside recruitment. Your response: Worked example: Fictional manufacturer Alder needs a second shift in twelve weeks. The recruitment team can improve search and assessment, but training capacity and equipment readiness belong to operations. Its charter targets qualified starters by week ten and records training availability as a dependency. Self-review guidance: A workable charter separates four accepted offers from four trained, productive starters. It names an operations owner for induction capacity and a recruitment owner for offer readiness. It does not promise production output solely from faster hiring. ### 5. Use evidence to choose the constraint Create a six-step timeline for three fictional cases. Identify one plausible constraint and one alternative explanation. Your response: Worked example: In ten fictional searches, scheduling takes two days and shortlist approval takes eight. Seven approval delays involve rewritten briefs. Buying a scheduler would not address the main observed delay. The pilot introduces a signed brief before sourcing. Self-review guidance: Show both waiting and working time. A defensible conclusion says brief ambiguity may cause approval rework, then checks whether interview availability or budget holds also explain the delay. Three cases inform a pilot, not an organisation-wide claim. ### 6. Design a balanced improvement experiment Specify one benefit measure, two guardrails and a stop condition for your charter. Your response: Worked example: A team pilots evidence-linked summaries on five comparable roles. It tracks review time, corrections and candidate complaints. One fabricated qualification pauses the trial while source handling is investigated, even if average preparation time has improved. Self-review guidance: Use a defined review unit and record comparable work. Include correction effort in time costs. Give the owner authority to suspend the change and route affected records for review. Do not label a small pilot as causal proof. ### 7. Turn an improvement into a maintained service Complete a handover with owner, permitted scope, weekly checks and an exception example. Your response: Worked example: A summary workflow works for engineering roles but misreads academic qualifications. The owner restricts its approved scope and opens a separate evaluation for research roles. The runbook tells operators to use manual review outside the tested scope. Self-review guidance: A useful handover lets a colleague recognise an unsupported use case and continue safely without the creator. Include the current version, how to pause, where to record a problem and when the service will be reviewed. ## 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.