| Course | HR485 Strategic HRM: Analytics and Business Decision-Making |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Strategic HR business case |
| Length | About 1,150 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HR485 Unit 10
A Pilot That Needs 4.4 Saved Hires: A Unit 10 Strategic HR Business Case for a Funeral Group
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HR485: Strategic HRM: Analytics and Business Decision-Making
Unit 10 Strategic HR Business Case
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Gatehouse Memorial Group, its programs and every figure are composite and illustrative, carried from Units 2 to 9; the sources cited are real.
Recommendation
Fund a two-quarter pilot of a first-ninety-days program at the four funeral homes where first-year location turnover is highest, starting May 1. Each new funeral attendant or family service assistant gets a trained peer mentor, check-ins with the location manager at 30, 60 and 90 days, and a manager who has completed a one-day session on running those check-ins. If the four homes' first-year attrition falls toward the rest of the network, extend the program; if it does not, stop it and turn to the wage question.
The Problem in Brief
Four of Gatehouse's 21 homes hold 28 percent of location staff and produced 31 of 61 location departures last year. Of all location departures, 39 came inside the first year. Each first-year departure costs about $8,866, of which $4,356 is cash. Last year the four homes lost 22 people to voluntary exits before their first anniversary. Those losses fell on homes that are also absorbing the busiest share of growth in cremation services, so each vacancy is felt during the months when families most need experienced staff. Those figures come from the turnover analysis and cost model and are not repeated here in detail. One more fact shapes the request: the data audit and the seminar follow-up showed that the cause of the concentration is still unknown, with new managers and a nearby employer paying $2.25 more an hour both fitting the counts. A business case that ignored that uncertainty would be easier to write and harder to defend.
What the Pilot Costs
Mentor stipends. About 24 new hires a year at the four homes, with a $600 stipend paid to each mentor per new hire: $14,400.
Mentor time. 30 hours of shadowing and support per new hire at the mentors' average rate of $24: $17,280.
Manager preparation. A one-day session for the four location managers and four assistant managers, with an outside facilitator at $2,500 and eight hours of each participant's time: $3,812.
Check-in time. Three one-hour check-ins per new hire, counting the manager's and the employee's time at a combined $51.25 an hour: $3,690.
Total: $39,182 a year. Of that, $16,900 is cash, the stipends and the facilitator; the rest is time.
The Return, Counted Conservatively
At $8,866 per first-year departure, the pilot breaks even once 4.4 departures a year are avoided at the four homes, about one in five of the 22 they had last year. The return section counts only that. It ignores any effect on the other seventeen homes, any improvement in family satisfaction and any reduction in the overtime that vacancies cause beyond the premium already in the cost model.
Is one in five plausible? Pooling many studies of new employees, Bauer et al. (2007) found that the way an employer brings new people in affects whether they understand the job, believe they can do it and feel they belong, and that new hires who reach those points are less likely to leave. Klein et al. (2015) found that specific onboarding practices, including assigning a contact person and scheduled meetings with the supervisor, were associated with better socialization outcomes for new employees. Neither study promises a particular reduction at a funeral home, and this case does not claim one. It asks whether preventing four or five departures among 24 hires is a reasonable bet, and on the evidence it is.
The case does not forecast a reduction in turnover; it states how small a reduction would pay for the program and lets the committee judge whether that is likely.
Alternatives Considered
Do nothing. The status quo costs about $195,000 a year in first-year departures at the four homes, at 22 times $8,866, and the workforce forecast shows the losses compounding as the consolidation strains the remaining staff.
Roll the program out to all 21 homes. This would spend most of the money where turnover is already moderate and make the result impossible to read, since there would be no comparison group.
Match the fulfillment center's starting wage at the three nearby homes. Raising the starting rate by $2.25 for the 43 location employees at those homes would cost about $201,240 a year, and would need 22.7 avoided departures to break even, when those three homes lost only 17 people in their first year last year. More important, it addresses only one of the two explanations the data cannot yet separate. It is deferred, not rejected: if the new exit question shows most leavers at those homes moving to the fulfillment center, this case will return with a pay recommendation. Allen et al. (2010) caution that employers often assume pay drives turnover when other factors matter more, and the deferral respects that warning without dismissing pay.
Implementation
April. Select and train mentors at the four homes, two per home; run the manager session.
May 1. Every new hire in the four homes enters the program.
Monthly. Location managers record check-ins in the new checklist field on the HR scorecard.
August. Report 90-day retention for the May and June hires.
November. Report two quarters of results and recommend extending, changing or stopping the program.
Risks
Mentor burnout. Mentors are experienced attendants already covering night calls. Stipends are paid only for completed mentoring, and no mentor takes more than two new hires at once.
Check-ins skipped. A check-in that does not happen cannot help. The scorecard's leading measure, check-ins completed on time, makes the gap visible within a month.
Confounding. The fulfillment center's hiring could rise or fall during the pilot. The new exit question records where leavers go, so the November report can separate the two effects at least partly.
How Success Will Be Measured
The success measure is the four homes' first-year voluntary attrition on the cohort definition from Unit 2, compared with the other seventeen homes over the same period. Because a cohort's full-year figure takes twelve months to complete, the November decision will rest on 90-day and 180-day retention as early indicators, stated as provisional. The program continues if the four homes' early retention moves at least halfway toward the rest of the network, the same standard used for the scorecard target. If it does not move, the program stops, and the money is redirected to whichever explanation the exit question supports.
Conclusion
Gatehouse's first-year losses are concentrated, costly and partly unexplained. A $39,182 pilot tests the explanation that can be tested cheaply, needs to prevent fewer than five departures to pay for itself, and produces the evidence the more expensive option is waiting for.
References
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.24.2.48
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707-721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.707
Klein, H. J., Polin, B., & Sutton, K. L. (2015). Specific onboarding practices for the socialization of new employees. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(3), 263-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12113
HR485 Unit 10 instructions, in plain terms
HR485 ends with a business case for a single HR investment, drawing on the analysis built through the course. Open with the recommendation in a paragraph, then summarize the problem using earlier findings without repeating them in full. Cost the proposal line by line and show which part is cash. The return section should be conservative: state what the investment must achieve to pay for itself, compare that with the size of the problem, and support plausibility with research rather than a forecast. Alternatives belong in the case, including doing nothing, and each needs a reason for being rejected or deferred. Implementation should be dated, risks should come with controls, and the success measure should be defined before the program starts, with a decision rule for extending or stopping it. The order should follow how a budget committee reads: recommendation, cost, return, alternatives, risks and measurement.
Inside the HR485 Unit 10 example
The case opens with a one-paragraph recommendation and a margin note on putting the price first. A short problem summary draws the four homes' concentration and the $8,866 unit cost from earlier units and notes that the cause is still open. Four cost lines follow, mentor stipends, mentor time, manager preparation and check-in time, totaling $39,182. The return section sets 4.4 avoided departures against 22, cites Bauer and colleagues on newcomer adjustment and Klein and colleagues on onboarding practices, and the highlighted line explains why the case declines to forecast. Alternatives include doing nothing at about $195,000 a year, a network-wide rollout without a comparison group and the deferred wage match, supported by Allen and colleagues. Implementation runs from April mentor training to a November report. Risks cover mentor burnout, skipped check-ins and confounding, and the success measure compares the four homes with the other seventeen.
Where the points sit in the HR485 Unit 10 rubric
Business cases at the end of HR485 are graded on persuasiveness built from evidence. The recommendation must be clear and specific, the costs must reconcile and the return must be framed so a skeptical reader can accept it. Break-even framing tends to score well because it avoids promising a result the data cannot support. Alternatives are often where marks are won: considering doing nothing and a broader rollout, and explaining why a costlier option is deferred rather than rejected, shows judgment. Risks with controls and a success measure set in advance show that the program could be managed. The case should rely on the organization's own data first, with research used to judge plausibility. Every figure should match the earlier units. Formatting for a committee, with short sections and labeled lines, is expected, and the onboarding studies relied on belong in an APA 7 reference list.
HR485 Unit 10 help: mistakes that cost points
Weak business cases promise a specific reduction in turnover, such as cutting it in half, without evidence that the program can achieve it. Others give costs without separating cash from staff time, which a finance reviewer will do anyway. A common omission is the do-nothing option, which makes the case look one-sided. Some students reject alternatives without reasons, or ignore an expensive alternative entirely when the data suggest it could matter. A success measure added at the end as an afterthought, with no decision rule, leaves the program running indefinitely. Make sure the implementation dates are realistic and the risks are specific to the program. Keep earlier findings brief and cite where they came from. When your own analysis points to a different program, a referral bonus or a schedule change for example, our writers can turn it into a case in this same order.
Get an HR485 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Send the cost figures and findings your earlier HR485 units produced, the Unit 10 prompt and the rubric. The free first sample, back within 24-48h, recommends one action for your case, prices it in cash and time, sets a break-even point and names the evidence that would prove it paid off. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HR485 papers and BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) samples
- HR485 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HR485 Unit 2: Metric Definition Brief
- HR485 Unit 3: Workforce Data Audit
- HR485 Unit 4: Turnover Analysis
- HR485 Unit 5: Cost Model
- HR485 Unit 6: Workforce Planning Forecast
- HR485 Unit 7: HR Scorecard
- HR485 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- HR485 Unit 9: Executive Briefing
- HR435 Unit 10: Total Rewards Strategy
- HR400 Unit 10: Talent Acquisition Strategy
- HR420 Unit 10: Risk Management Plan
- HR410 Unit 10: Development Strategy Report
HR485 Unit 10 questions, answered
What is a break-even framing?
Instead of promising a reduction in turnover, the case asks how many departures the program must prevent to cover its cost, then compares that number with how many occurred. Here 4.4 out of 22 is required. A reader can judge whether that is plausible without trusting a forecast, which makes the case harder to dismiss.
Does the business case need a literature review?
Some sections ask for supporting research; follow your prompt if so. Keep it brief and relevant, such as studies on structured onboarding and early turnover, and let the organization's own figures carry the argument. An executive committee is persuaded by its own data more than by findings from other employers, and many rubrics weight it that way.
Where can I find a free HR485 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page carries a full HR485 Unit 10 strategic HR business case for an onboarding pilot at a composite funeral group, with costs, break-even, alternatives, risks and margin notes.
What does the pilot cost, and how much is cash?
$39,182 a year: mentor stipends of $14,400, mentor time of $17,280, manager preparation of $3,812 and check-in time of $3,690. The cash part, stipends and the facilitator, is $16,900.
How will the committee know whether the pilot worked?
In November it compares the four homes' 90-day and 180-day retention with the other seventeen. If the four move at least halfway toward the network, the pilot is extended; if not, it stops and the money follows the exit-question evidence.