The purpose of this study was to develop an integrated, evidence-based curriculum development framework to strengthen HRM graduate competence within the South African higher education context. To achieve this aim, the study synthesised national and international scholarship on HRM competence requirements, curriculum design principles and graduate employability, and explored stakeholder perspectives from academics and professional body representatives regarding the capabilities required for effective HRM practice. Building on this theoretical and empirical foundation, the study examined the alignment between contemporary HRM curricula and professional expectations, identified systemic gaps and constraints limiting the development of work-ready graduates, and subsequently formulated a systems-oriented framework. This framework was operationalised through practical evaluative instruments intended to support structured curriculum review, quality assurance and continuous programme improvement.

Curriculum within professional disciplines cannot be reduced to the transmission of disciplinary knowledge. Contemporary scholarship conceptualises curriculum as an integrated architecture comprising learning outcomes, content, pedagogy, assessment, sequencing and governance processes that collectively shape professional capability (Loughlin et al., 2021). Particularly in applied fields such as HRM, curriculum functions as a mechanism of professional formation, mediating between academic knowledge and occupational practice.

Classical curriculum theorists provide enduring foundations but reveal limitations when applied to contemporary competence-based professional education. Tyler’s (1949) objectives-driven model emphasises alignment between educational purposes, learning experiences, organisation and evaluation, anticipating later notions of constructive alignment. Wheeler’s (1967) cyclical model introduces feedback and iterative renewal, highlighting curriculum as a dynamic rather than static structure. Taba’s (1967) inductive approach foregrounds teacher agency and learner needs, while Nicholls and Nicholls (2018) position assessment as integral to curriculum coherence.

Although these models establish principles of alignment and cyclicality, they were developed primarily within content-centric educational paradigms. They do not explicitly theorise competence development in digitally mediated, rapidly evolving professional contexts. Moreover, they provide limited guidance on stakeholder co-governance or institutional enablers that influence curriculum responsiveness. In professional disciplines such as HRM – where regulatory standards, technological change and organisational expectations intersect – curriculum design must extend beyond internal alignment towards systemic integration with the professional ecosystem.

The shift towards competence-based education reflects this broader reorientation. Competence models emphasise integrated knowledge, skills, attitudes and values demonstrated through applied performance rather than abstract mastery alone. However, competence-based education has been critiqued for potential reductionism, particularly when competencies are atomised into fragmented behavioural indicators that neglect higher-order integrative judgement. Thus, the challenge for HRM education lies not merely in defining competencies, but in designing curriculum systems that enable their progressive, authentic development.

The evolution of HRM from a primarily administrative function to a strategic partner within organisations has fundamentally altered the competencies required of professionals.

Ulrich (2020) conceptualises HR professionals as strategic partners, change agents and culture stewards, requiring business acumen and systems awareness. Similarly, Falletta and Combs (2021) emphasise evidence-based HR, HR analytics and data-informed decision-making as defining features of contemporary practice. Professional bodies such as the SABPP (2025) articulate competence standards encompassing technical-functional proficiency, ethical governance, digital capability and strategic alignment.

Within the South African context, research indicates persistent concern regarding graduate readiness for these expanded professional roles (Chweu et al., 2023; Jackson, 2019; Maisiri & Van Dyk, 2021; Seunarain, 2024). Employers frequently report deficiencies not in theoretical knowledge per se, but in applied problem-solving, digital fluency and integrative judgement. These findings suggest that curriculum misalignment may reflect systemic design issues rather than mere content gaps.

The 4IR further intensifies the demands for competence. Human resource professionals must navigate artificial intelligence applications, digital workforce platforms, algorithmic decision-making and ethical risks associated with data analytics (Majam & Jarbandhan, 2022; Nafukho et al., 2024). Consequently, HRM curricula must cultivate digital literacy alongside ethical discernment and strategic reasoning. Importantly, these capabilities are interdependent: technological proficiency without ethical judgement or strategic insight risks superficial competence.

Synthesising the literature, three integrated competence domains were identified and used consistently throughout the study:

These domains were not treated as discrete categories, but as interdependent capabilities that must be developed through integrated curriculum processes, a gap not sufficiently addressed in prior literature.

Graduate employability research broadens the analysis beyond discipline-specific competencies. Tomlinson et al.’s (2017) graduate capital model conceptualises employability as the interplay of human, social, cultural, identity and psychological capital. Coetzee’s (2014) psychological career resources framework similarly foregrounds adaptability, emotional literacy and self-regulation as meta-capabilities enabling career sustainability. These models highlight that employability is multidimensional and contextually embedded.

However, employability discourse has been criticised for implicitly individualising responsibility for labour market outcomes, potentially obscuring structural economic constraints. In the South African context – characterised by high youth unemployment (Statistics South Africa, 2025) – curriculum reform alone cannot resolve systemic labour market inequities. Nevertheless, professional programmes such as HRM can enhance graduates’ adaptive and applied capability within these constraints.

A persistent limitation of outcome-based education reforms is their frequent focus on stated graduate attributes rather than on the curriculum processes that produce them. Explicitly articulated outcomes do not guarantee pedagogical coherence, authentic assessment or institutional support. Thus, employability enhancement requires not only defining capabilities but also embedding them within integrated curriculum governance structures.

Effective curriculum design in professional disciplines requires sustained stakeholder engagement. Cheng et al. (2022) conceptualise employability as a shared responsibility among universities, employers, professional bodies and government. Professional bodies such as the SABPP shape competence standards and accreditation expectations (SABPP, 2025), while industry provides insight into evolving skills demands.

Despite this recognition, stakeholder engagement is frequently episodic, limited to periodic programme reviews or advisory consultations (Scott, 2018). Such fragmentation weakens curriculum responsiveness and may produce symbolic rather than substantive alignment. Moreover, governance structures within universities – characterised by layered approval processes and workload pressures – may inhibit agile curriculum reform. The literature, therefore, points to the need for governance mechanisms that systematically integrate stakeholder input into curriculum design, delivery, evaluation and renewal.

General Systems Theory (Von Bertalanffy, 1968) offers a conceptual lens for integrating these strands. General Systems Theory conceptualises organisations as open systems in dynamic interaction with their environments. Applied to the curriculum, this perspective positions competence definitions as inputs; pedagogical and assessment practices as transformational processes; graduate capabilities as outputs; and stakeholder feedback as regulatory mechanisms that enable adaptation (Turner & Baker, 2019).

A systems perspective foregrounds several insights. Firstly, curriculum misalignment may emerge not from isolated deficiencies but from breakdowns in interconnections between components. Secondly, institutional enablers – such as leadership support, governance agility and resource alignment – serve as boundary conditions that influence system performance. Thirdly, feedback loops are essential for continuous renewal in rapidly evolving professional contexts.

Despite the explanatory potential of systems theory, its application within HRM curriculum research remains limited. Existing studies tend to examine discrete elements – competence requirements, stakeholder perceptions or assessment practices – without integrating them within a coherent systemic architecture.

The reviewed literature demonstrates substantial scholarship on curriculum theory, HRM competence frameworks, employability models and stakeholder engagement. Despite extensive scholarship, a central gap persists: the absence of a systemically integrated, empirically grounded framework that explains how HRM competence development is operationalised through curriculum design, stakeholder engagement, assessment practices and institutional governance within the South African context.

The discipline of HRM is the interface of multiple knowledge domains, mediating between academic knowledge and situated professional practice. In addition, in South Africa, it is shaped by regulatory, professional and labour market forces, as well as internal academic logics. Human resource management is, therefore, not only applied management but also a space where theory is operationalised in organisational practice and where practice-based knowledge feeds back into theory, curriculum and research. This perspective moves away from a ‘skills delivery’ imperative towards an epistemic mediation role.

Unlike disciplines like medicine, law or engineering, HRM knowledge is plural, contested and context-dependent. Professional authority is shared between academia, professional bodies and employers. Human resource management competence is judged by a combination of technical mastery, ethical judgement, relational capability and contextual intelligence.

The nature of HRM knowledge and competence makes it vulnerable to reductive competence mapping, managerial instrumentalism and policy-driven curriculum design. The proposed framework fills gaps by framing employability formation in a curriculum-centred manner, integrating professional standards into curriculum design, and providing a global South African perspective on employability. The framework discussed in this article responds directly to these vulnerabilities.

This study was grounded in a constructivist paradigm, which assumes that social realities, including professional competence and curriculum alignment, are co-constructed through stakeholder interpretations and institutional practices (Creswell & Poth, 2018). From this perspective, HRM graduate competence is not a fixed entity, but a socially negotiated construct shaped by professional standards, organisational expectations and academic interpretations. A qualitative approach was therefore appropriate, as the study sought to explore meanings, relationships and systemic dynamics rather than to test predetermined hypotheses.

The qualitative design further aligns with the study’s objective of developing a theory-informed framework. Rather than measuring existing variables, the study aimed to synthesise theoretical insights and stakeholder perspectives to generate a contextually grounded, systems-oriented curriculum model and associated evaluative instruments.

A sequential qualitative design was employed, consisting of two interrelated phases: (1) a thematic literature review and (2) semi-structured stakeholder interviews. This design followed a theory–data–integration logic.

In Phase 1, a structured thematic literature review was conducted to synthesise scholarship on HRM competence requirements, curriculum design theory, employability frameworks, stakeholder engagement and systems perspectives. This phase established a provisional conceptual scaffold identifying competence domains and curriculum alignment principles (Beretu & Charles, 2025).

In Phase 2, semi-structured interviews were conducted with HRM academics and representatives of professional bodies. The interview protocol was informed by Phase 1 findings, ensuring conceptual coherence between literature-derived constructs and empirical inquiry. Interview data were then analysed inductively and deductively to validate, refine and contextualise the emerging framework.

This sequential strategy enhanced conceptual rigour by ensuring that the proposed framework was neither purely deductive nor solely emergent, but rather developed through iterative engagement between theory and stakeholder experience.

The study was situated within the South African higher education context, focusing specifically on undergraduate HRM programmes at a selected public university. South Africa’s high youth unemployment rate (Statistics South Africa, 2025), evolving HR professional standards (SABPP, 2025) and digital transformation pressures provide a context in which curriculum responsiveness is particularly salient.

The selection of a single institution was purposive and theoretically justified. The institution represents a typical South African public university offering accredited HRM programmes aligned with SABPP standards, thereby providing a relevant and information-rich case reflective of broader national curriculum structures. This case enabled in-depth exploration of systemic curriculum processes, which would not have been possible in a multi-site, shallow design. While not statistically representative, the case is analytically representative of HRM curriculum governance dynamics in South Africa.

The first phase involved a structured, thematic literature review of publications from 2013 to 2024. Articles were sourced from African Online Scientific Information Systems (AOSIS) and Web of Science databases. Search terms included combinations of HRM competence, graduate employability, curriculum design, competence-based education, stakeholder engagement, HR professional standards, systems theory and curriculum.

The review process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol (Moher et al., 2010) to enhance transparency in the identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion of articles. Inclusion criteria comprised peer-reviewed English-language journal articles addressing HRM competence, professional education, employability or curriculum systems. Exclusion criteria included opinion pieces without empirical or theoretical grounding, non-peer-reviewed sources and studies unrelated to higher education or professional development.

Articles were screened for conceptual relevance and methodological rigour. Extracted data were thematically organised to identify recurring competence domains, curriculum alignment principles and governance themes. These themes informed the preliminary conceptual framework that guided Phase 2 data collection.

Purposive sampling was employed to identify participants with direct knowledge of HRM curriculum design and professional competence standards (Akkaş & Meydan, 2024). The sample comprised:

Participants represented varying academic ranks and levels of professional experience, enhancing the diversity of perspectives within the bounded institutional context. The inclusion of professional body representatives strengthened external stakeholder representation, although industry participation was mediated through professional governance structures rather than direct employer sampling (Beretu, 2026; Beretu & Charles, 2025).

Data saturation was monitored through iterative analysis. After 17 interviews, no substantively new thematic insights emerged, consistent with Creswell and Poth’s (2018) guidance on qualitative sampling adequacy. Saturation was assessed based on thematic redundancy rather than numerical thresholds.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams (Microsoft Inc., Redmond, WA, US) with each session lasting approximately 25–40 min. The interview guide was informed by the literature review and explored:

Interviews were recorded with participant consent. Verbatim transcription was undertaken, and transcripts were anonymised using participant codes (e.g. R1 for academics; M1 for SABPP members). Field notes were maintained to capture contextual observations and reflexive insights (Beretu, 2026; Beretu & Charles, 2025).

The researcher’s position as a doctoral candidate with experience in HRM education necessitated reflexive awareness to mitigate potential bias. Reflexive memos were maintained to document interpretive decisions and analytic reasoning throughout the research process.

Thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2022) six-phase framework:

Both deductive and inductive coding were employed. Deductive codes were derived from the literature review (e.g. competence domains, stakeholder engagement, assessment alignment), while inductive codes emerged from participant narratives. This dual strategy supported analytic depth while maintaining openness to contextual nuance (Beretu, 2026; Beretu & Charles, 2025).

ATLAS.ti software (Berlin, Germany) facilitated systematic coding, organisation and retrieval of data. Coding proceeded iteratively, with refinement of thematic categories through constant comparison across transcripts. Theme development followed a structured progression from raw data excerpts to coded segments and higher-order thematic categories, ensuring traceability between data and framework components.

The final framework and associated evaluative instruments were derived by mapping validated themes onto a systems-oriented architecture that links inputs, processes, enablers and outputs.

Trustworthiness was established using Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) criteria:

The study was conducted within a single institutional context and included representation from one professional body. While this enabled depth and coherence in framework development, it limits statistical generalisation. The framework and associated instruments should therefore be regarded as contextually grounded and analytically generalisable, requiring further empirical validation across institutions and disciplines.

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of South Africa, College of Economic and Management Sciences, Ethics Research Committee Human Resource Department (Ref. No. 2025_HRM_007 and 6763). All procedures complied with institutional regulations and the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), ensuring the confidentiality and secure management of data (Beretu, 2026).

The thematic literature review identified a convergent pattern across HRM competence frameworks, employability theory and curriculum scholarship. Three interdependent competence domains consistently emerged as foundational to contemporary HRM practice: technical-digital capability, strategic-cognitive capability and relational-ethical capability (Coetzee, 2022; SABPP, 2025; Veldsman & Coetzee, 2022). These domains resonate with broader employability constructs such as human, social and psychological capital (Coetzee, 2014; Tomlinson et al., 2017).

In addition to competence domains, the literature emphasised four curriculum design principles:

However, while these principles are well-documented, the review revealed limited integration between competence frameworks and curriculum governance mechanisms within the South African HRM context (Beretu, 2026). This gap informed the second empirical phase, which sought stakeholder validation and contextual elaboration.

Interview findings largely validated the tripartite competence structure derived from the literature while adding contextual nuance regarding perceived weaknesses. Table 1 summarises the competencies most frequently emphasised by participants. Table 1 is presented to illustrate thematic salience across respondents rather than to imply quantitative measurement.

Table 1 demonstrates that communication and relational capability were consistently emphasised, reinforcing the relational-ethical domain. References on technological and data literacy validated the technical-digital domain, particularly in relation to HR analytics and digital systems. Strategic-cognitive capabilities such as business acumen, critical thinking and problem-solving were also recurrent.

Importantly, participants did not describe these competencies as isolated attributes. Rather, they emphasised their interdependence. For example, digital proficiency was frequently linked to ethical judgement and business interpretation, suggesting that competence development must be integrative rather than modular (Beretu, 2026).

Illustrative quotations underscored this integration:

These findings indicate that misalignment is not conceptual disagreement about required competencies, but rather concerns the processes through which those competencies are cultivated.

Analysis revealed that curriculum misalignment was sustained primarily by systemic and procedural dynamics rather than by the absence of competence awareness (Beretu & Charles, 2025). Four interrelated themes emerged: fragmented stakeholder engagement, disjuncture between theory and practice, assessment misalignment and institutional barriers.

The framework was derived through a three-stage analytic process:

This process ensured traceability from raw data to framework components, addressing concerns regarding transparency in framework derivation.

Drawing on both literature synthesis and stakeholder validation, the findings were mapped into a systems-oriented architecture that links competence inputs, development processes, contextual enablers and outputs through feedback loops. Figure 1 presents the resulting Integrated Curriculum Development Framework.

Figure 1 illustrates four interrelated components:

Foundational inputs define the competence framework, encompassing technical-digital, strategic-cognitive and relational-ethical domains. These are derived from literature, professional standards and stakeholder validation.

Core development processes operationalise competence development through stakeholder-integrated curriculum co-design, pedagogy of integration and authentic competence assessment. These processes function synergistically to translate inputs into graduate capability.

Contextual enablers acknowledge that successful implementation depends on leadership commitment, academic capacity development, governance agility and resource alignment within the institutional ecosystem.

Outputs and feedback encompass work-ready HRM graduates, with evidence from employers, professional bodies and alumni informing continuous curriculum review and renewal.

The framework conceptualises the curriculum as an interconnected and evolving system rather than a set of isolated components. The figure illustrates the central insight emerging from the data: defining graduate competencies in isolation is inadequate unless supported by aligned teaching and learning processes, appropriate assessment practices, active stakeholder engagement and enabling institutional governance conditions.

The derivation of the governance instruments followed a traceable mapping logic from empirical themes to framework components and subsequently to evaluative criteria. For example, the theme of fragmented stakeholder engagement informed the framework component ‘Stakeholder-Integrated Curriculum Co-Design’, which was operationalised in the scorecard through criteria such as B1.1 (Formal co-design structures) and B1.2 (Lifecycle engagement). Similarly, the theme of assessment misalignment informed the ‘Authentic Competence Assessment’ component and was translated into criteria assessing authentic assessment design and competence-aligned evaluation practices. This mapping process ensured conceptual coherence between qualitative findings, the systems framework and the proposed instruments.

To translate the framework into evaluative tools, two prototype instruments were developed: an HRM curriculum scorecard and an accreditation rubric. These instruments were derived by mapping validated themes onto observable criteria within each system component.

To translate the Integrated Curriculum Development Framework into a practical evaluative tool, an HRM curriculum scorecard was developed. The scorecard provides a structured diagnostic mechanism for assessing the extent to which competence architecture, curriculum processes, institutional enablers and feedback mechanisms are systematically embedded within an HRM programme, as reflected in the scoring scale outlined in Table 3.

The scale reflects progressive levels of curriculum maturity rather than binary compliance. It enables diagnostic assessment across foundational inputs, processes, enablers and outputs.

Appendix 1 presents the practical HRM curriculum scorecard, derived directly from the Integrated Curriculum Development Framework. It is designed as a diagnostic and developmental tool, not merely an audit instrument, and can be used by programme review panels, curriculum committees, HRM departments and professional bodies (e.g. for advisory or accreditation input). The structure mirrors the framework components (inputs → processes → ecosystem → outputs and feedback), ensuring conceptual alignment between the Framework and the scorecard.

The scorecard operationalises system elements into assessable criteria, linking competence articulation, stakeholder integration, pedagogy, assessment, governance and feedback mechanisms. It is proposed as a developmental tool rather than a prescriptive compliance instrument.

Developing an HRM programme accreditation rubric based on the HRM curriculum scorecard is both methodologically sound and practically justified. The scorecard provides a structured, evidence-based articulation of the core competence domains, curriculum design principles and contextual imperatives that define quality and relevance in HRM education. Translating these criteria into an accreditation rubric enables a systematic, transparent evaluation of HRM programmes against clearly defined performance levels, rather than a binary, compliance-driven judgement. The rubric, therefore, operationalises the scorecard by converting its dimensions into measurable standards that can be applied consistently across institutions, supporting comparability, fairness and defensibility in accreditation decisions. Moreover, the rubric strengthens alignment between curriculum design, graduate competence outcomes, and professional and regulatory expectations, ensuring that accreditation judgements are anchored in the same integrated competence logic that informed curriculum development. In this way, the accreditation rubric functions not only as a quality assurance instrument but also as a developmental tool that guides programme enhancement, continuous improvement, and alignment with evolving HRM practice and labour market demands.

The accreditation rubric is designed to support programme accreditation and re-accreditation, as well as quality assurance, by providing transparent, standardised criteria aligned with the Integrated Curriculum Development Framework.

The rubric serves as an applied evaluative instrument designed to operationalise the Integrated Curriculum Development Framework for HRM programmes and to support systematic curriculum review, quality assurance and accreditation decision-making.

The derivation of the rubric followed a theory–data–application sequence, consistent with qualitative instrument development in applied educational and HRM research.

This study extends classical curriculum alignment models (Nicholls & Nicholls, 2018; Tyler, 1949; Wheeler, 1967) by embedding them within a systems-oriented governance framework tailored to HRM education. Drawing on organisational systems theory (Von Bertalanffy, 1968), the findings suggest that curriculum alignment must move beyond objectives, pedagogy and assessment to incorporate stakeholder co-governance and institutional enabling conditions. The framework further integrates HR professional standards (Falletta & Combs, 2021; SABPP, 2025; Ulrich, 2020) with employability theory (Coetzee, 2014; Tomlinson et al., 2017), conceptualising competence not as a static graduate attribute but as an emergent property of integrated curriculum systems. In reframing misalignment as systemic rather than content-based (Majam & Jarbandhan, 2022; Nafukho et al., 2024), the study shifts attention from what should be taught to how curriculum systems function.

The Integrated Curriculum Development Framework provides HRM departments with a structured lens for evaluating programme coherence. The HRM curriculum scorecard serves as a developmental diagnostic tool to assess competence articulation, scaffolding, stakeholder integration and authentic assessment. The findings underscore that meaningful reform requires aligned assessment redesign and digital integration; without these, competence-based curricula risk remaining symbolic.

Institutional leadership, governance agility, workload recognition and academic capacity development were identified as critical enablers of curriculum responsiveness. Curriculum reform, therefore, requires coordinated institutional support rather than isolated module-level initiatives. For professional bodies such as the SABPP (2025), the accreditation rubric offers a structured basis for programme evaluation, though further empirical validation is required. The findings also highlight the need for sustained, formalised stakeholder engagement mechanisms beyond periodic consultation.

At the policy level, enhancing graduate employability (Statistics South Africa, 2025) requires governance frameworks that balance accountability with agility. Streamlined approval processes and enabling regulatory environments may support more responsive curriculum renewal in rapidly evolving professional contexts.

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. Firstly, the research was undertaken within a single institutional setting, focusing on one South African university’s undergraduate HRM programme. While this enabled in-depth exploration and contextual sensitivity, it limits statistical generalisability. The framework should therefore be regarded as analytically transferable rather than universally generalisable.

Secondly, although purposively selected, stakeholder representation was limited to HRM academics and representatives of a single professional body (SABPP). Direct participation from employers, alumni and students was not included in the interview phase. Although these stakeholder groups were discussed by participants and reflected in the literature synthesis, their direct voices were not empirically captured, which may constrain the comprehensiveness of the findings.

Thirdly, the study relied on qualitative data from participants’ self-reports. While triangulation between the literature and interview findings strengthened credibility, the absence of observational or document analysis data limits insight into enacted curriculum practices. Additionally, interviews of 25–40 min, while sufficient for thematic saturation, may not have captured deeper organisational dynamics influencing curriculum governance.

Fourthly, the HRM curriculum scorecard and accreditation rubric were derived through theory–data integration but were not subjected to empirical validation procedures such as pilot implementation, inter-rater reliability testing or psychometric analysis. The instruments should therefore be regarded as prototype governance tools requiring further refinement and validation.

The absence of direct employer data represents a limitation. While SABPP representatives provided professional insight, future research should incorporate direct employer perspectives to strengthen external validity. Expanding the institutional scope in future studies will enable comparative validation of the framework across diverse higher education contexts.

Finally, the researcher’s professional background in HRM education, while beneficial for contextual understanding, required reflexive awareness to mitigate potential interpretive bias. Although reflexive documentation was maintained, qualitative interpretation remains inherently shaped by researcher positionality.

The findings highlight several priorities for future research and development. Firstly, the Integrated Curriculum Development Framework, HRM curriculum scorecard and accreditation rubric require empirical validation across multiple institutions. Pilot studies and action research designs could assess implementation feasibility, contextual adaptation and the impact on curriculum coherence, while quantitative analyses should examine reliability and construct validity to strengthen the defensibility of these approaches for quality assurance purposes.

Secondly, broader stakeholder inclusion is recommended. Future research should incorporate employers, alumni, students and policymakers to triangulate perspectives on competence development and curriculum alignment, including comparative studies across diverse institutional contexts. Longitudinal tracking of HRM graduates would further clarify the relationship between curriculum design and employability outcomes over time.

Finally, the framework’s applicability beyond HRM warrants exploration. Cross-disciplinary studies could test its relevance in other professional programmes, while integrating the scorecard into institutional quality management systems may enable data-driven monitoring and benchmarking to support continuous curriculum renewal.