Formula Reference Sheet · For IHRP Review

WDG(JR+) Workforce Readiness Diagnostic
Scoring & Recommendation Engine

All formulas, thresholds, and bundle-decision rules powering the live self-diagnostic at derrick-pixel.github.io/jrplus/diagnostic.html. Implementation faithful to the underlying Excel scoring engine (Internal Use_elitez_workforce_diagnostic_branded.xlsx, 23 Mar 2026).

Elitez Pte. Ltd.
WSG Pre-Approved Consultant
Prepared for IHRP co-brand review

1 Inputs · 13 dimensions + 2 signal flags

Section A — HR Maturity (1–5 Likert)

HR1

Workforce Planning

HR2

Talent Attraction

HR3

Learning & Development

HR4

KPI & Performance Management

HR5

Employee Engagement

HR6

HR Technology

HR7

Leadership & Management Capability

Section B — JR Readiness (1–5 Likert)

JR1

Process Efficiency

JR2

Role Clarity

JR3

Technology Utilisation

JR4

Employee Productivity

JR5

Workflow Bottlenecks Inverted

JR6

Management Support for Change

Section C — Signal flags (Yes / No)

SIG1

Repetitive manual tasks present? Tiebreaker

SIG2

Automation potential identified? Tiebreaker

2 Composite Scores · 0 – 5 scale

HR Maturity Score — straight mean across the 7 HR dimensions.

// HR Maturity Score HR_Score = ( HR1 + HR2 + HR3 + HR4 + HR5 + HR6 + HR7 ) / 7

JR Readiness Score — JR5 is severity-inverted via (6 − JR5) so every dimension reads higher = better.

// JR Readiness Score (JR5 inverted) JR_Score = ( JR1 + JR2 + JR3 + JR4 + (6 − JR5) + JR6 ) / 6

Excel parity: =AVERAGE(I:O) for HR_Score · =AVERAGE(P:S, 6−T, U) for JR_Score (Scoring sheet, columns E and G).

3 Banding · HR Level & JR Priority

HR Maturity Level

HR_Score < 2.5Basic

2.5 ≤ HR_Score < 4.0Developing

HR_Score ≥ 4.0Progressive

JR Readiness Priority

JR_Score < 3.0High Priority

3.0 ≤ JR_Score < 3.5 AND SIG1=Yes & SIG2=YesHigh Priority

3.0 ≤ JR_Score < 4.0 (otherwise)Moderate

JR_Score ≥ 4.0Low

Why a tiebreaker: the borderline 3.0–3.5 band is where Yes/Yes signals (clear repetitive work + automation potential) override the score and push the case into High Priority redesign — a refinement over the original Excel logic which fired too aggressively.

4 Bundle Recommendation · top-down decision tree (first match wins)

Full Transformation Package HR_Score < 3.0 AND JR_Score < 3.0

C1 + C2 + C3

Job Redesign + Capability Building JR_Priority = "High Priority" (rule #1 not matched)

C1 + C3

HR Transformation + Leadership Development HR_Score < 3.0 (rules #1, #2 not matched)

C1 + C2

Targeted Optimisation Support otherwise — workable foundation, refine specific gaps

Component legend: C1 Workforce Consultancy · C2 Capability Building · C3 Workforce Tech Solutions

5 Gap Detection · dimension-level priorities

Any individual dimension flagged when score crosses the threshold below. Surfaced on the report as “below threshold — prioritise this area” tags.

HRₕ < 3For each HR1–HR7 — flagged when self-rated below baseline.

JRₕ < 3For JR1–JR4 and JR6 — readiness below baseline.

JR5 > 3Workflow Bottlenecks — severity-inverted: a high raw score means severe friction, so the gap rule reverses.

Excel parity: JR-gap count =
COUNTIF(P:S,"<3") + IF(6−T<3,1,0) + IF(U<3,1,0)

6 Worked example · end-to-end

Inputs · HR = [3,2,2,3,3,2,3] · JR = [3,2,3,3, JR5=4, JR6=3] · SIG1=Yes, SIG2=Yes

HR_Score = (3+2+2+3+3+2+3) / 7 = 2.57 → Developing JR_Score = (3+2+3+3 + (6−4) + 3) / 6 = 2.67 → High Priority // HR_Score < 3 AND JR_Score < 3 → rule #1 fires Bundle = Full Transformation Package (C1+C2+C3) Gaps = HR2, HR3, HR6, JR2, JR5 → 5 priority items