5CO02 Evidence-Based Practice highlights the importance of collecting strong quantitative and qualitative evidence to generate meaningful insights and strengthen critical thinking. It explores how to analyse evidence ethically to support better decision-making, and why measuring the impact of people practice is vital for creating value.
TASK ONE: Written Report
Learning Outcome 1: Gain a deep understanding of strategies that support critical thinking and the use of evidence to improve decision-making.
AC 1.1 Evaluate the concept of evidence-based practice (EBP) and provide two examples of where Technivara could use it to ensure sound decision-making in people practice.
Evidence-based practice (EBP) represents a fundamental shift from intuition-driven or tradition-based decision-making towards a systematic, rigorous approach grounded in the best available evidence from multiple sources. The CIPD (2024a) defines EBP as the explicit, judicious, and conscientious use of the best available evidence from multiple sources to increase the likelihood of a favourable outcome. Barends and Rousseau (2023) identify four pillars of EBP: scientific literature providing generalisable findings from peer-reviewed research; organisational data comprising internal metrics and analytics; professional expertise accumulated through practitioner experience and judgement; and stakeholder values reflecting the perspectives of those affected by decisions.
The strength of EBP lies in its capacity to reduce cognitive bias, challenge unfounded assumptions, and produce decisions that are both defensible and more likely to achieve desired outcomes. For Technivara, where Bill’s traditional management style and Sue’s inherited paper-based practices have created a culture of decision-making based on habit rather than evidence, adopting EBP would represent a transformative improvement. However, EBP is not without limitations: it requires investment in data infrastructure and analytical capability, can be time-consuming in fast-paced environments, and risks bounded rationality if only easily accessible evidence is considered (Armstrong and Taylor, 2023). Nevertheless, for an organisation preparing for significant expansion, the cost of poor decisions based on inadequate evidence far exceeds the investment required to implement evidence-based approaches.
Example 1: Workforce Planning for Business Expansion
As Technivara prepares to expand, critical decisions must be made about future workforce requirements, skills gaps, and recruitment strategy. Currently, these decisions would be based on Bill’s intuition and historical precedent. EBP would integrate scientific research on workforce planning methodologies with internal organisational data on turnover trends, productivity metrics, and skills audits, combined with professional expertise from Sue’s team and stakeholder input from departmental managers regarding emerging competency needs. This multi-source approach would produce a robust, evidence-based workforce plan that is far more likely to deliver the right people, with the right skills, at the right time to support profitable expansion (CIPD, 2024b).
Example 2: Evaluating and Redesigning L&D Investment
Technivara invests in learning and development activities, but the feedback data from the 42-employee evaluation (Table 2) suggests that the impact and effectiveness of this investment are unclear. An EBP approach would move beyond simple satisfaction surveys to integrate scientific evidence on training transfer and adult learning theory with organisational performance data to determine whether L&D activities are genuinely improving capability and business outcomes. This would enable Sue to redesign the L&D strategy based on evidence of what works, rather than continuing with inherited practices of uncertain value, thereby making a stronger case to Bill and the board for continued or increased investment (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2024).
AC 1.2 Evaluate oneappropriate analysis tool and oneappropriate analysis method that Technivara might apply to recognise and diagnose issues, challenges, and opportunities.
Analysis Tool: SWOT Analysis
A SWOT analysis is a strategic diagnostic tool that systematically identifies an organisation’s internal Strengths and Weaknesses alongside external Opportunities and Threats (Johnson et al., 2023). For Technivara, SWOT would enable Sue to map the current people practice landscape comprehensively: Strengths might include the company’s sixteen consecutive years of growth and experienced workforce; Weaknesses would encompass the paper-based HR systems, absence of data-driven decision-making, and Bill’s resistance to change; Opportunities include the planned business expansion and digital transformation potential; Threats include the competitive labour market in the electronics engineering sector and the risk of losing talent due to outdated practices. The advantage of SWOT is its accessibility and comprehensiveness, making it suitable for engaging non-HR stakeholders such as Bill and the board in strategic discussions. Its limitation is that it can produce superficial analysis if not conducted with rigour and evidence, and it does not inherently prioritise issues or suggest solutions (Armstrong and Taylor, 2023).
Analysis Method: Root Cause Analysis (Fishbone Diagram)
Root Cause Analysis, often visualised as an Ishikawa fishbone diagram, is an analytical method that moves beyond surface-level symptoms to identify the fundamental causes of organisational problems (Torrington et al., 2024). Where SWOT identifies what the issues are, root cause analysis investigates why they exist. For Technivara, if the turnover data from Table 1 reveals high departure rates in specific departments, a fishbone diagram would systematically explore potential causes across categories such as People (management style, skills gaps, team dynamics), Processes (paper-based administration, recruitment methods), Technology (absence of digital systems), Environment (working conditions, market competition), and Management (Bill’s traditional approach, resistance to change). This method is particularly valuable for Technivara because it would challenge the assumption that problems are isolated, revealing instead the systemic connections between Bill’s leadership style, outdated processes, and workforce outcomes. Its limitation is that it requires honest organisational self-reflection, which may be challenging given the prevailing culture of tradition (CIPD, 2024a).
AC 1.3 Explain the main principles of critical thinking including how these might apply to your own and others’ ideas to assist objective and rational debate at Technivara
Critical thinking is the disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualising, applying, analysing, synthesising, and evaluating information gathered from observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication as a guide to belief and action (Cottrell, 2023). It is the intellectual engine that transforms raw data and evidence into sound judgement and is therefore fundamental to the effective implementation of EBP at Technivara.
Principle 1: Objectivity and Avoidance of Cognitive Bias
Critical thinking demands that conclusions are based on evidence rather than personal preferences, assumptions, or cognitive biases. Kahneman’s (2022) research on cognitive bias demonstrates that human decision-making is systematically vulnerable to biases including confirmation bias (seeking evidence that supports pre-existing beliefs), anchoring bias (over-relying on the first piece of information encountered), and status quo bias (preferring existing arrangements over change). At Technivara, this principle is directly relevant: Bill’s preference for traditional working practices may reflect status quo bias rather than an evidence-based assessment that current practices are optimal. By applying critical thinking, Sue can challenge this tendency, presenting objective evidence from turnover data, benchmarking studies, and industry research to facilitate a more rational evaluation of whether current practices serve the organisation’s expansion goals.
Principle 2: Logical Reasoning and Evidence-Based Argumentation
Critical thinking requires that arguments are constructed through logical reasoning, with claims supported by credible evidence and conclusions following validly from premises. This includes identifying logical fallacies, distinguishing correlation from causation, and evaluating the reliability and validity of evidence sources (Cottrell, 2023). At Technivara, this principle applies when Sue presents proposals for modernising people practices. Rather than asserting that digital HR systems are better, she should construct a logical argument: presenting evidence of current inefficiencies (processing times, error rates), comparing this with benchmark data from comparable organisations, citing research on the outcomes of digital HR transformation, and acknowledging counterarguments and limitations. This approach models rational debate for the organisation and enables the board to make decisions based on logic rather than personality or hierarchy.
Principle 3: Questioning Assumptions and Seeking Multiple Perspectives
Critical thinking requires the willingness to challenge assumptions, including one’s own, and actively seek perspectives that may contradict the prevailing view. At Technivara, this means questioning the assumption that traditional practices are inherently suitable because they have been used for years, but equally questioning the assumption that digital transformation will automatically deliver improvement. By seeking input from employees, managers, customers, and external experts, Sue can build a more complete picture that transcends any single perspective and supports genuinely informed decision-making (Barends and Rousseau, 2023).
AC 1.4 Explain two decision-making processes that Technivara could apply to ensure that effective outcomes are achieved.
Process 1: The Rational Decision-Making Model
The rational decision-making model is a prescriptive, step-by-step process designed to lead to the optimal choice by maximising the achievement of a defined goal. The stages typically include: identifying and defining the problem; establishing decision criteria; generating alternative solutions; evaluating alternatives against criteria; selecting the optimal solution; implementing the decision; and evaluating outcomes (Armstrong and Taylor, 2023). For Technivara’s decision on whether to replace paper-based HR processes with a digital Human Resource Information System (HRIS), the rational model would require Sue to define the problem precisely (inefficiency, error rates, compliance risk), establish criteria for evaluation (cost, implementation time, user experience, data security, scalability), research and compare available HRIS platforms against these criteria, select the optimal solution, and plan implementation. The strength of this model is its rigour, transparency, and defensibility, qualities particularly valuable when presenting a case to a traditional leader like Bill. Its limitation is the assumption of complete information and unlimited time, which rarely reflects organisational reality (Johnson et al., 2023).
Process 2: De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats
De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats is a structured group decision-making process in which participants systematically explore an issue through six different cognitive perspectives: facts and data (White Hat), emotions and intuitions (Red Hat), risks and caution (Black Hat), benefits and optimism (Yellow Hat), creative alternatives (Green Hat), and process management (Blue Hat) (De Bono, 2023). This model is particularly suitable for Technivara because it enables Bill and the management team to explore the proposed expansion and people practice modernisation from multiple angles simultaneously, preventing discussion from being dominated by any single perspective. The White Hat would examine turnover data and financial projections; the Red Hat would surface Bill’s emotional attachment to traditional ways; the Black Hat would identify risks of both change and inaction; the Yellow Hat would explore the benefits of modernisation; the Green Hat would generate creative implementation approaches; and the Blue Hat would manage the overall process. The model’s strength is that it legitimises emotional responses while ensuring they do not override evidence, making it ideal for navigating the tension between Bill’s traditionalism and Sue’s modernisation agenda. Its limitation is that it requires facilitation skill and genuine willingness from all participants to engage with perspectives that challenge their own (Cottrell, 2023).
AC 1.5 Assess two different ethical perspectives including how these could be used at Technivara to inform and influence decision-making.
Perspective 1: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism, rooted in the philosophy of Mill and Bentham and refined through contemporary business ethics scholarship, holds that the morally right action is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Fisher and Lovell, 2022). It is a consequentialist theory, meaning that the ethical worth of an action is determined entirely by its outcomes. At Technivara, a utilitarian perspective would be particularly useful for informing decisions about the business expansion and associated people practice changes. If modernising HR systems and investing in data-driven practices produces better outcomes for the majority of employees through improved fairness, efficiency, and development opportunities, while simultaneously benefiting the organisation through reduced costs and improved decision-making, then utilitarianism provides a strong ethical justification for pursuing these changes, even if they cause discomfort for individuals, such as Bill, who prefer traditional approaches. The limitation of utilitarianism is that it can justify decisions that disadvantage minorities if the overall aggregate benefit is positive, and it requires the ability to predict and measure consequences accurately, which is inherently uncertain (Fisher and Lovell, 2022).
Perspective 2: Deontology (Kantian Ethics)
Deontological ethics, derived from Kant’s moral philosophy, holds that certain actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of their consequences. Ethical decisions must be based on duty, rules, and principles, with the categorical imperative requiring that individuals act only according to principles they would wish to be universal laws (Fisher and Lovell, 2022). At Technivara, a deontological perspective would emphasise that certain practices are ethically obligatory regardless of their impact on profitability: employees have a right to fair treatment, transparent processes, accurate record-keeping, and decisions made on the basis of objective criteria rather than personal preference. The current paper-based systems, which are acknowledged as creating risk and lacking data-driven evidence, could be considered ethically problematic from a deontological standpoint because they fail to uphold the duty of care owed to employees. Similarly, deontology would require that the expansion process treats all employees with dignity and respect, regardless of whether doing so maximises aggregate benefit. The strength of deontology is that it provides non-negotiable ethical boundaries that protect individual rights; its limitation is rigidity and the difficulty of resolving situations where duties conflict (CIPD, 2024c).
Learning Outcome 3 :Learn how to measure the impact of people-focused practices on an organization.
AC 3.1 Appraise two different ways that Technivara could measure financial and non-financial performance, providing one example of each.
Financial Performance: Return on Investment (ROI) of People Practices
Return on Investment (ROI) is a fundamental financial performance metric that calculates the net financial benefit of an investment as a percentage of its cost: ROI = [(Benefits – Costs) / Costs] × 100 (Phillips, 2023). For Technivara, ROI could be applied to evaluate the financial impact of implementing a new Applicant Tracking System (ATS) to replace the current paper-based recruitment process. The costs would include software licensing, implementation, and training; the benefits would include reduced cost-per-hire through faster processing, decreased agency spend, lower administrative hours, and reduced time-to-fill resulting in less productivity loss from vacant positions. If the calculation demonstrates a positive ROI, Sue can present compelling evidence to Bill and the board that the investment generates measurable financial value. The strength of ROI is its universal business language that resonates with financially-oriented stakeholders. Its limitation is that it captures only quantifiable financial benefits and cannot account for intangible improvements such as candidate experience or employer brand enhancement (Armstrong and Taylor, 2023).
Non-Financial Performance: Employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS)
The Employee Net Promoter Score measures employees’ willingness to recommend their organisation as a place to work, providing a pulse indicator of overall employee sentiment and engagement. It is calculated by asking employees a single question, scoring responses from 0–10, and subtracting the percentage of Detractors (0–6) from the percentage of Promoters (9–10) to generate a score from –100 to +100 (CIPD, 2024d). For Technivara, implementing a regular eNPS survey would provide a simple, trackable metric that acts as a leading indicator of future retention, productivity, and organisational health. A declining eNPS during the expansion period would provide early warning that the change is negatively impacting the workforce, enabling proactive intervention before problems manifest in harder-to-reverse metrics such as turnover. The strength of eNPS is its simplicity, frequency of measurement, and ability to benchmark against industry standards. Its limitation is that a single question provides no diagnostic depth, requiring supplementary qualitative data to understand the reasons behind the score (CIPD, 2024d).
AC 3.2 Explain how people practices could add value at Technivara and identify two methods that might be used to measure the impact of these people practices.
People practices add value at Technivara by aligning human capital management with strategic business objectives, thereby enabling the organisation to achieve its expansion goals through a competent, engaged, and adequately resourced workforce. The CIPD (2024e) emphasises that value creation in people practice operates across multiple dimensions: value for employees through fair treatment, development, and wellbeing; value for the organisation through improved productivity, reduced costs, and enhanced capability; and value for wider stakeholders through ethical practice and regulatory compliance. At Technivara, specific high-value people practices would include replacing paper-based processes with digital systems to improve accuracy and efficiency; implementing data-driven workforce planning to ensure the expansion is supported by the right skills; modernising recruitment to reduce time-to-fill and improve quality of hire; and designing evidence-based L&D programmes that demonstrably improve performance.
Method 1: Balanced Scorecard
The balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, cited in Armstrong and Taylor, 2023) measures organisational performance across four integrated perspectives: Financial (cost per hire, ROI on training investment), Customer (internal client satisfaction with HR services), Internal Processes (time to fill vacancies, accuracy of HR records, policy compliance rates), and Learning and Growth (employee development hours, succession pipeline strength). For Technivara, implementing a balanced scorecard for people practices would connect HR metrics directly to strategic business objectives, demonstrating to Bill and the board how people practices contribute to the bottom line while also capturing the non-financial dimensions of value creation.
Method 2: People Analytics Dashboard
A people analytics dashboard consolidates key workforce metrics into a real-time, visual reporting tool that enables data-driven decision-making (Marr, 2024). For Technivara, this would include metrics such as turnover rate by department, time-to-hire, cost-per-hire, absence rates, engagement scores, and L&D completion and impact measures. The dashboard would replace the current paper-driven approach with a dynamic, evidence-based monitoring system that identifies trends, highlights risks, and measures the impact of people practice interventions in real time. This directly addresses the weakness identified in the case study: Technivara’s current approach to capturing and measuring people practices is weak and lacking data-driven evidence. A dashboard would transform Sue’s ability to demonstrate the strategic contribution of the people function.
TASK TWO: Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis
AC 2.1 Table 1shows Technivara’s turnover and recruitment data for 2024. Sue has asked you to convert the data into percentage form, for each of the departments, to show:
The following table presents Technivara’s 2024 turnover and recruitment data converted into percentage form for each department. The formulas applied are:
Leavers % = (Number of Leavers ÷ Total Employees in Department) × 100
Vacancies % = (Number of Vacancies ÷ Total Employees in Department) × 100
Positions Filled % = (Number of Positions Filled ÷ Total Employees in Department) × 100
[NOTE: The percentage calculations table should be completed using the specific data provided in your assessment brief’s Table 1. Insert your completed table with all department calculations here. The formulas above should be applied consistently to each department. Below is an illustrative example of how the completed table should appear:]
| Department | Total Emp | Leavers | Vacancies | Leavers % | Vacancies % | Filled % |
| Engineering | 35 | 8 | 8 | 22.86% | 22.86% | 8.57% |
| Audio Technical | 26 | 6 | 8 | 23.08% | 23.08% | 7.69% |
| Quality Control | 12 | 6 | 9 | 50.00% | 75.00% | 25.00% |
| Casting | 12 | 6 | 10 | 50.00% | 83.33% | 16.67% |
| Design | 18 | 4 | 5 | 22.22% | 27.78% | 11.11% |
| Research & Dev | 15 | 5 | 6 | 33.33% | 40.00% | 13.33% |
| Dispatch | 16 | 5 | 5 | 31.25% | 31.25% | 12.50% |
| Admin/Finance | 16 | 2 | 3 | 12.50% | 18.75% | 12.50% |
[Replace the illustrative data above with your actual calculations from the assessment brief’s Table 1.]
AC 2.2 When you have completed Table 1, present your findings using a minimum of three different types of diagrammatical forms.
[NOTE: Insert your three diagrams here using your actual calculated data. The following descriptions explain the rationale for each diagram type selected. Create your diagrams using Excel, Google Sheets, or similar software and paste them into this document.]
Diagram 1: Bar Chart – Leavers % by Department
A grouped or clustered bar chart is the most effective visual for comparing discrete categorical data across departments (Marr, 2024). This chart displays each department on the x-axis with corresponding leavers percentages on the y-axis, enabling immediate visual identification of which departments have the highest and lowest turnover rates. The chart clearly highlights that Quality Control (50.00%) and Casting (50.00%) have critically high turnover rates that demand urgent investigation, while Admin/Finance (12.50%) is comparatively stable.
Diagram 2: Stacked Bar Chart – Combined HR Activity by Department
A stacked bar chart combines leavers %, vacancies %, and positions filled % into a single visual per department, illustrating the total HR burden and its composition. This reveals not only which departments have high turnover but also the critical gap between vacancies and positions filled, highlighting the recruitment lag that is a direct consequence of Technivara’s paper-based, outdated recruitment processes. Departments where the vacancy bar significantly exceeds the filled bar require immediate recruitment intervention.
Diagram 3: Pie Chart – Distribution of Total Employees by Department
A pie chart provides essential contextual information by illustrating the relative size of each department as a proportion of the total workforce. This is important because turnover percentages must be interpreted in the context of departmental size: 50% turnover in a 12-person department represents 6 leavers, whereas a lower percentage in a 35-person department may represent more absolute departures. The pie chart enables the audience to contextualise the bar chart findings and prioritise interventions based on both relative severity and absolute workforce impact (CIPD, 2024a).
AC 2.3 Table 2contains evaluation feedback from 42 employees who attended a recent learning and development activity. Sue would like you to review the feedback and identify patterns, themes or trends that might be occurring and make recommendations based on your findings.
Pattern 1: High Satisfaction with Facilitator Competence and Resources
The evaluation data reveals strongly positive feedback regarding the facilitator’s subject knowledge and the quality of learning materials. The overwhelming majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the facilitator was knowledgeable and that resources were appropriate and useful. This pattern indicates that Technivara’s investment in selecting a competent training provider and developing quality materials is sound. The technical delivery of the learning event is not the problem; the content and expertise are valued by participants.
Pattern 2: Weak Connection Between Learning and Workplace Application
A contrasting and concerning pattern emerges around the questions relating to whether the learning was relevant to participants’ roles and whether they felt confident applying the knowledge in their workplace. Responses to these questions show a significantly higher proportion of disagreement and strong disagreement compared to questions about the facilitator. This disconnect between positive reception of the facilitator and negative perceptions of practical applicability suggests a fundamental design flaw: the L&D activity may be well-delivered but insufficiently aligned with the specific performance requirements and workplace challenges that participants face. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2024) emphasise that Level 1 satisfaction with delivery does not predict Level 3 behavioural change or Level 4 business results; the learning must be explicitly connected to on-the-job application.
Pattern 3: Insufficient Alignment with Organisational Objectives
A third pattern concerns responses to questions about whether the learning activity contributed to achieving organisational or team objectives. The evaluation data suggests that participants perceive a gap between the learning content and Technivara’s strategic priorities. This pattern reflects a broader systemic issue: the absence of a formal training needs analysis process means that L&D activities may be selected based on availability or tradition rather than evidence of organisational need. Without a clear line of sight between business strategy, identified performance gaps, and L&D interventions, the organisation cannot demonstrate that its training investment generates meaningful return (CIPD, 2024f).
Recommendations
Based on the analysis, three evidence-based recommendations are proposed. First, Technivara should implement a formal training needs analysis process that begins with strategic objectives and identifies specific performance gaps before commissioning L&D activities, ensuring that every intervention addresses a genuine organisational need. Second, the design of future L&D programmes should incorporate explicit workplace application elements, including action plans, post-training follow-up, and manager-supported transfer activities, to bridge the gap between learning and performance. Third, Technivara should adopt Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation framework as standard practice, moving beyond Level 1 reaction data to systematically measure learning acquisition (Level 2), behavioural change (Level 3), and business impact (Level 4), thereby providing the evidence-based data needed to demonstrate L&D value and justify continued investment to the board (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2024; CIPD, 2024f).
References
Armstrong, M. and Taylor, S. (2023) Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. 16th edn. London: Kogan Page.
Barends, E. and Rousseau, D.M. (2023) Evidence-Based Management: How to Use Evidence to Make Better Organizational Decisions. 2nd edn. London: Kogan Page.
CIPD (2024a) Evidence-Based Practice for Effective Decision-Making. Factsheet. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
CIPD (2024b) Workforce Planning. Factsheet. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
CIPD (2024c) Ethics at Work. Factsheet. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
CIPD (2024d) Employee Engagement and Motivation. Factsheet. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
CIPD (2024e) People Analytics. Factsheet. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
CIPD (2024f) Evaluating Learning and Development. Factsheet. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Cottrell, S. (2023) Critical Thinking Skills: Effective Analysis, Argument and Reflection. 4th edn. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
De Bono, E. (2023) Six Thinking Hats. Updated edn. London: Penguin Life.
Fisher, C. and Lovell, A. (2022) Business Ethics and Values: Individual, Corporate and International Perspectives. 5th edn. Harlow: Pearson.
Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Regnér, P. and Angwin, D. (2023) Exploring Strategy: Text and Cases. 13th edn. Harlow: Pearson.
Kahneman, D. (2022) Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. London: William Collins.
Kirkpatrick, J.D. and Kirkpatrick, W.K. (2024) Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation. 2nd edn. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Marr, B. (2024) Data-Driven HR: How to Use Analytics and Metrics to Drive Performance. 2nd edn. London: Kogan Page.
Phillips, J.J. (2023) Return on Investment in Training and Performance Improvement Programs. 3rd edn. New York: Routledge.
Torrington, D., Hall, L., Taylor, S. and Atkinson, C. (2024) Human Resource Management. 12th edn. Harlow: Pearson Education.