fpf.tools
Jump to text
On this page
Copy and source
Original source · lines 126–137
Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-31 05:42:14 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-31 05:43:13 UTC · last check 2026-10-31 11:05:10 UTC

HRM.Reference:2.3 - Five separately usable Methods

MethodIts own resultWhat it supplies to another Method
HRM.1, coherent arrangementA compatible combination of workforce practices, work, terms and provision, or an identified unresolved dependencyRelevant work and participation conditions for HRM.2–HRM.5; receives their findings when a combination must change
HRM.2, assessment and selectionA justified personnel comparison and recommendation for a particular useThe supported capability and suitability inference; not an appointment, entitlement or clinical conclusion
HRM.3, remuneration and progressionExplained reward terms and their transitionObligations and incentives affecting selection, participation and helping work; receives changed job demands and qualified contribution findings
HRM.4, voice and contested decisionsObtainable influence, a qualified determination or a remedyParticipant knowledge, negotiated terms or a decision that can require any affected practice to change
HRM.5, participation and transitionsA particular continuation, absence, return, movement or exit with actual work, support and effective termsIndividual conditions and consequences; returns recurring incompatibilities to HRM.1

These are not stages that every employee must traverse. HRM.1 works across practices and participants; HRM.5 constructs a particular person’s arrangement. HRM.2–HRM.4 can be used directly. An existing sufficient rule can settle a case without invoking a new configuration exercise. Conversely, running all five separately does not prove that their commitments can coexist.