HRM318 Tutor-Marked Assignment 01

This assignment is worth 45% of the final score for HRM318 Human Capital Measurement.

The cut-off date for this assignment is 23 March 2026 (Monday), 2355hrs.

This is an individual assignment. You are required to upload a single report to CANVAS and please be advised to note down the Submission ID as acknowledgement of submission. Submission ID is the ONLY proof of submission, especially in the event of technical failure.

Submission via Canvas mobile app is not supported.

Multiple submissions are allowed before the cut-off date. All assignments are to be submitted via T/TG group in CANVAS. Please ensure that you have submitted the assignment to the correct folder. Re-submission is NOT allowed after the cut-off date (including the grace period). Only the latest submission copy will be considered for grading. Any appeals for resubmission after the cut-off date will not be entertained.

The university’s prevailing mark deduction scheme will apply to all late submissions.

Please include a cover page with the following details:

• Title of this course, your name and PI number
• Tutorial group
• Submission Date
• Academic Integrity Declaration Statement (refer to “Declaration of Academic Integrity.docx”)

The Academic Integrity Declaration Statement must be completed and appended to the cover page of your assignment submitted for assessment. If you have declared the usage of generative AI in the academic integrity declaration statement in the cover page of your assignment, you will need to complete the Attribution Table as shown in Table A in “Declaration of Academic Integrity.docx” (available for download on Canvas> L/LG > Modules). Marks deduction may apply if resubmissions of a completed declaration form and table are required.

In accordance with the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), please DO NOT include other personal particulars.

To facilitate your submission into Canvas, name your document file strictly to this format – CourseCode_AssignmentCode_UserID_FullName.

For example, ABC123_TMA01_Sally001_TanMeiMeiSally (omit D/O, S/O).

Academic Integrity

All written work is required to be referenced. That is, formally acknowledging the source of ideas, quotes, or facts gained from other authors and which are used directly or indirectly in the text of your papers. The American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style must be used for all in-text citations, references, figures, and tables. For more information, you may refer to https://libguides.suss.edu.sg/apa.

Honesty and integrity are the foundations of all forms of academic work, including at SUSS. Direct lifting of texts without acknowledgment is plagiarism, and disciplinary action will be taken. Students are advised to synthesise and rephrase ideas in your own words. If you use generative AI in your assignment, be sure to provide in-text citations and attribute using Table A. For formats of proper citation and attribution of generative AI generative response, please refer to https://rise.articulate.com/share/GlQuywqm9MmZkxbaGig0HjjFA73k7aBr#/ .

Please be aware that all submissions will be automatically screened by the Turnitin, which contains plagiarism detection through a similarity index. Similarity index is NOT, by itself, an indicator of whether you have (self) plagiarised or not. A responsible way of drawing on external sources is citation and attribution. Review https://www.suss.edu.sg/aboutsuss/centres/teaching-and-learning-centre/learning-support for guidelines and tips to avoid plagiarism and guidance on the use of generative AI (See Section 5.1 Part K).

You are reminded that the penalties for academic dishonesty are severe and may include expulsion from the programme or referral to SUSS’ Student Disciplinary Group. Details on the academic dishonesty can be found in your student handbook. Please refer to Section 5.2 Academic Matters of the University Student Handbook on academic integrity and plagiarism.

Formatting Instructions

The assignment is to be submitted in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) with the following format:

• Font type: Times New Roman
• Font size: 12 point
• Line spacing: 1.5 lines
• Margin: 1” all round
• Paragraph Alignment: Justified

The word limit for this written assignment is 2500 words. Please include figures and tables only when necessary. All figures and tables need to be labelled and formatted according to 7^th edition APA style. All figures and tables need to be accompanied with descriptions and explanations where appropriate. In other words, only use figures and tables when they provide supplementary information to your assignment. Figures and Tables are NOT included in the word count.

As indicated in the rubrics, penalties will be imposed for non-adherence to formatting guidelines.

Assignment

Background

GastroPOP ^[1] is a food and catering provider that is growing rapidly in Singapore and has plans to expand into the ASEAN market. The story of GastroPOP started with the CEO, Rumi Sagar who graduated from Culinary Institute of America and worked in several Michelin Star restaurants internationally. While she is interested in creating gastronomic food, she also wants these dishes to be appreciated by a larger group of customers. Rumi felt that gastronomy need not be overly expensive and gastronomy can be accessible for the growing middle-class population in the region. This journey started as a home-run kitchen and have expanded to be established as the leading gourmet food and catering provider in Singapore. Having grown up within a family-owned business conglomerate, Rumi understood how to run a business. GastroPOP food and catering business is one of the few businesses that serves gourmet food that has an integrated value chain from food production to events. According to one interview, Rumi wants GastroPOP’s to be the foremost in gastronomic food and catering in the region. To do so, GastroPOP’s need to capture the heart and mind by creating experiences through taste, depth, and meaning of each course. In 2025, GastroPOP has managed to record over $50 million in revenue. GastroPOP has also received several recognitions including Singapore’s SME Excellence Award and Prestige 100 Singapore Award.

GastroPOP comprises of several key units. The business development department is responsible for client servicing and new business development. The food innovation department is the company’s research and development arm. This department creates new recipes and dishes so that it continues to offer unique food experiences for their clients. The operations department manages the central kitchen, manufacturing facilities, and warehouses to ensure efficiency and quality control. The sustainability department sources with both local and international farmers and food producers to ensure that the quality of ingredients are obtained at the highest quality with the lowest cost.

The synergies between these four units are crucial to achieve GastroPOP’s vision and stay on top of the competition. As part of the key performance indicators, the senior leadership tracks critical business outputs such as client satisfaction, new product innovation, and sales. For client satisfaction, the senior leadership tracks the satisfaction score that client complete after service delivery. New product introduction measures the number of new dishes or improved processes that has been developed. Sales is measured as the revenue generated from the food and catering sales.

[1] Betty Corp is a fictitious company.

Employee Engagement

Due to the rapid growth of the company especially in the number of employees, the CEO is unable to attend to each employee personally unlike the days when it was just started. Rumi observed that her staff is not as energised and motivated as before, especially those at front lines. Therefore, she has spoken with the Chief People Officer (CPO), Jinu Gomez on how this can be tracked and the likely factors associated with this. Jinu worked together with a consultant and constructed the GastroPOP Workforce Survey to measure the level of employee engagement and the associated factors that are known to predict employee engagement. This was conducted in January 2025. Appendix 1 lists the items for the survey and their associated factors.

Enabling the Workforce through AI.

After the survey was conducted, Jinu and the team organised Focus Group Discussions (FGD) to get a richer understanding of the issues face by staff. One key theme that was highlighted was the amount of administrative work that employees had to manage. Jinu discussed these findings with Rumi. Rumi spoke with the Head of Operations to see if they can use AI tools to manage the administrative work so that employees can focus on more higher value work. The Head of Operations suggested working with Enterprise Singapore as they have a Productivity Solutions Grant for local SMEs to help them automate certain processes. A team made up of interested employees from various departments was formed to be trained and to implement these tools across the company.

After three months of rolling out the new AI tools, Jinu monitored some outcomes of this AI pilot. In particularly, Jinu was interested in the improvement of workload across employees. Jinu asked the team to conduct a snap poll on 30 randomly selected employees who jobs were assisted by the AI tools. A composite index of workload was created by aggregating the mean of the items. The data from the poll was tagged to the data from the survey. However, these data were deidentified so that the results are anonymous. Data set 2 consists of the composite index scores of workload at the time of the survey in January 2025 and the snap poll conducted after three months of rolling out the new AI tools. (See HRM318-206Jan- GastroPOP-DataSet2-Workload.csv).

Tasks

As the People Analytics Lead, you are required to produce a technical report to the CPO based on the following:

1. Describe and apply Fitz-Enz’s Human Capital-to-Enterprise pathway based on the information from the case vignette (Please exclude the human capital management level).

(10 marks)

2. Apply the steps based on the scientific process in Bauer et al. (2019) for data set 1 (see Appendix 1) and prepare a data analysis report in the following manner (Please only apply analytic methods taught from this course, other analytic methods will NOT be marked):

(a) Apply the steps based on the scientific process in Bauer et al. (2019) for data set 1 (see Appendix 1):

i. Identify the problem faced by the organisation and the purpose of the survey as indicated in data set 1.

ii. Conduct research (based on reputable academic journals) on the factors (i.e., independent variables) relating to the dependent variable as indicated in data set 1. From your research, briefly summarise the research that explains the relationship between each factor (i.e., independent variable) and the dependent variable. Then, develop hypotheses for each factor (i.e., independent variable) and its relationship with the dependent variable.

(b) Analyse data set 1 in the following manner:

i. Examine and report the reliabilities of each measurement scale. (Attach the SPSS output as Appendix 1 in your TMA).

ii. Explain an appropriate statistical analysis to use. Then analyse the data using the appropriate statistical analysis and report the descriptive statistics and the statistical analysis output and conclusions (You are required to recreate the required tables from the output in the main report. Then attach the SPSS output as Appendix 2 in your TMA).

(45 marks)

3. Apply the following steps based on the scientific process in Bauer et al. (2019) for data set 2 (see HRM318-2026Jan-GastroPop-DataSet2-Workload.csv) and prepare a data analysis report in the following manner:(a)  Apply the steps based on the scientific process in Bauer et al. (2019) for data set 2 (see HRM318-2026Jan-GastroPop-DataSet2-Workload.csv):i. Identify the purpose of the study as indicated in data set 2.
   ii. Develop a hypothesis.

   (b) Analyse data set 2 in the following manner. First, explain an appropriate statistical analysis to use. Then analyse data set 2 using an appropriate statistical analysis and report the output and conclusions (You are required to create the required tables from the output in the main report. Then attach the SPSS output as Appendix 3 in your TMA).

   (c) Rumi attended a business leader conference and was inspired by a session on harnessing AI. She agrees that companies will be left behind if they do not embrace the use of AI. Hence, she has tasked Jinu to work with vendors to upskill all her employees to be familiar with AI tools. Jinu worked with a training vendor to provide elearning on AI. Jinu discussed with Rumi and requires all employees to attain at least a basic competency level, while the team leads must attain at least a proficient competency level by the end of 2026. Team leads are also required to prepare a proposal to use AI to improve their processes. Rumi is also interested in determining the proportion of team leads that have the potential to develop their AI capabilities so that they can lead in process improvement. Propose TWO (2) metrics that will be useful for GastroPOP. Please describe the metric and explain how metric’s score can be useful for the CPO.

(35 marks)

General Formatting of the Report

(10 marks)

1. Formatting(a)  Recreate Tables from the statistical output with accuracy following the 7^th edition APA format.
   (b) Attach required statistical outputs as appendices.
2. Citations and References(a) All Citations and references need to follow the 7^th edition APA format.
   (b) For research, citations and references should be from credible and reputable journals where possible such as:
   i. Top 50 Journals from Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/3405a5125cbb-11e1-8f1f-00144feabdc0)
   ii. Q1 Journals from Scimago Journal & Country Rank (https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php) (Subject Areas in Business, Management and Accounting; Psychology)

Additional Information

1. GastroPOP data set 1 GastroPOP Workforce Survey data is uploaded on CANVAS. The filename is titled: HRM318-2026Jan-GastroPop-DataSet1-Survey.csv. Details of the survey can be found on Appendix 1.
2. GastroPOP data set 2 Perceptions of Workload data before and after AI initiatives were implemented is uploaded on CANVAS. The filename is titled: HRM318-2026Jan- GastroPOP-DataSet2-Workload.csv. Details of the data can be found in the case vignette.
3. The assessment rubric is provided in Appendix 2.

Survey Manual

Five variables of interest (Work Engagement, Workoverload, Supervisor Support, Work Autonomy, and Work to Family Conflict) were taken from the GastroPOP Workforce Survey. The survey was all self-rated by the employees. These five variables of interest are taken from validated psychometric instruments. The data are listed in the HRM318-2026Jan-GastroPOPDataSet1-Survey.csv file. The descriptions of the five variables are highlighted below.

1. Work Engagement

Work Engagement measures an employee’s sense of significance from one’s work, feelings of enthusiasm, and pride about one’s job (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). There are nine items used in this measurement scale. Employees rated these items on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Somewhat Disagree, 3 – Slightly Disagree, 4 – Neither Disagree nor Agree, 5 – Slightly Agree, 6 – Somewhat Agree, & 7 – Strongly Agree). Table 1 shows the description of items. Suggested keywords are work engagement and employee engagement.

Table 1

Items in Work Engagement

2. Workoverload

Workoverload is taken from Lequeurre et al. (2013) which measures the pace and amount of work, mental load, and emotional load of the employee. There are 4 items in this measurement scale. Employees rated these frequencies of the items on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 – Never, 2 – Rarely, 3 – Sometimes, 4 – Often, & 5 – Always). Table 2 shows the description of items.

Table 2

Items in Workload

3. Supervisor Support

The Supervisor Support measurement scale is taken from Baruch-Feldman et al. (2002) which measures the employee’s perception of caring and support and the absence of hostility of the supervisor. There are ten items used in this measurement scale. Employees rated the agreement of the items on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 – Not at all, 2 – Not really, 3 – Undecided, 4 – Somewhat, & 5 – Very much). Table 3 shows the description of items.

Table 3

Items in Supervisor Support

R represents item is reversed.

4. Work Autonomy

The Work Autonomy measurement scale is taken from the Leiden Quality of Work Questionnaire (van der Doef & Maes, 1999) which measures the degree to which employees can make work decisions on their own and the degree to which employees control how and when they work. There are eight items used in this measurement scale. Employees rated the frequency of the items on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Agree, & 5 – Strongly Agree). Table 4 shows the description of these items.

Table 4

Items in Work Autonomy

AU06                 I can determine my work pace.

AU07                I can determine the order in which I do my work.

AU08                 I can have a chat during my work.

R represents item is reversed.

5. Work to Family Conflict

The Work to Family Conflict measurement scale is taken from Netemeyer and colleagues (1996) which measures how the demands of time and strain due to work commitments interfere with family responsibilities. There are four items used in this measurement scale. Employees rated their agreement with these items on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Agree, & 5 – Strongly Agree). Table 5 shows the description of these items.

Table 5

Items in Work to Family Conflict

References

Baruch-Feldman, C., Brondolo, E., Ben-Dayan, D., & Schwartz, J. (2002). Sources of social support and burnout, job satisfaction, and productivity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.7.1.84

Lequeurre, J., Gillet, N., Ragot, C., & Fouquereau, E. (2013). Validation of a French questionnaire to measure job demands and resources. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 26(4), 93–124.

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology,

81(4), 400-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400

Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2004). Utrecht work engagement scale preliminary manual.

https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/Test%20Manuals/Test_manual_

UWES_English.pdf van der Doef, M. & Maes, S. (1999). The Leiden quality of work questionnaire: Its construction, factor structure, and psychometric qualities. Psychological Reports,

85(3), 954-962. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1999.85.3.954

HRM318 Assessment Rubric

—- END OF ASSIGNMENT —-