Simulation 1

Simulation: Talent Acquisition in the Age of AI

Purpose (Why we’re doing this)

You will practice making a real HR decision: recommending an AI-powered hiring platform for

RetailCo. You’ll evaluate three vendors against competing priorities (speed, quality,

ethics/compliance, cost, and integration) and explain your trade-offs. Then you’ll compare your

analysis with peers and reflect.

Step-by-Step Instructions: This assignment has two parts: Part one is due 10/03 11:59 PM and

part two is due 10/10 11:59 PM.

Part 1 — Your Analysis (Due 10/03 11:59 PM)

Read & Annotate (Prep)

• Read the RetailCo Organizational Profile and Vendor Profiles.

• Actively annotate (highlight/underline/margin notes). Focus on:

o RetailCo’s challenges (turnover, time-to-fill, candidate drop-off)

o Your priorities in this decision (as a Task Force member)

o Key differences among the three vendors

• No need to submit your annotated file.

Build Your Vendor Scoring Matrix (1–5 scale)

• Score each vendor on the five criteria in the scoring sheet (1 = poor, 5 = excellent):

Record Your Rationale Video (60–120 seconds)

Your video must cover, clearly and concisely:

• Why you scored vendors the way you did (hit at least 2 criteria explicitly).

• The two biggest trade-offs that drove your thinking (e.g., speed vs. retention; privacy

cost vs. risk; quick setup vs. integration quality)

• Your current top pick (if any) and the single biggest risk you’d monitor

Format: Video + 1 slide. Captions/auto-captions are strongly encouraged.

Deliverables:

• Rationale video

• Matrix table (pasted/attached as PDF or image; ensure readable)

• Note: Include both the matrix and the video in the same submission

Part 2 — Peer Feedback (Due 10/10 11:59 PM)

Respond to Two Classmates (50–100 words each, per reply)

Each reply must include:

• One meaningful similarity (not a summary)

• One meaningful difference (where you diverged and why)

• Changed your mind? Say what specifically changed (e.g., a criterion weight, a vendor

rank, or a risk you’d now monitor) or why your view stands

Quality Bar (what counts / what doesn’t):

• ✔ Counts: “We both prioritized Compliance/Privacy because of __. I diverged on Cost

because I weighted add-ons more heavily; your point about data residency made me

reconsider __. I’m not changing my top pick, but I now see the risk in __.”

• ✘ Doesn’t count: Summaries of their video, “Great job!” comments, pure agreement,

<50 words, or generic statements.

Grading (140 points total)

Part 1 – Initial Post (100 pts)

• Matrix completeness & clarity (20 pts): All vendors scored on all 5 criteria; table is

readable.

• Rationale video (80 pts): Explains why the scores, names two trade-offs, states top pick

+ one risk; 60–120s.

Part 2 – Peer Responses (40 pts)

• Two replies @ 20 pts each: 50–100 words; includes one similarity + one difference +

whether your view changed with brief rationale; analytical (not summary/cheerleading).

Automatic zeroes for a reply: summary-only, all-agree with no analysis, under 50 words, or

missing the “changed/not changed & why” element.

Academic Integrity & AI Use

• Your scores and reasoning must be your own.

• You may use tools for grammar, formatting, or captioning only.

• If you used a tool for wording, add a final note: “Tools used: ___ for ___.”

Late Work & Support

• Late policy: Work posted after the deadline will receive a 30% deduction unless you

contact me before the due date with a brief explanation. Need help? email me; include

“AI Simulation” in the subject.