WFM System Install & Recovery
Make your WFM system trusted, usable and worth the investment
A WFM system should give leaders confidence. It should help the operation forecast demand, plan resource, build schedules, manage the day and understand risk. But being live is not the same as being trusted.
It may be that the operation still relies on spreadsheets. Forecasts are challenged. Schedules need too much manual correction. Reports do not match what managers see on the floor. Real Time teams cannot trust the data quickly enough to act. The vendor may say the system is configured, but the people using it know that something is not working.
Atlantic WFM provides independent WFM expertise for organisations implementing a new system, recovering a difficult implementation, or trying to get more value from a system they already own. We help you determine whether the system supports the decisions that matter: service, cost, staffing, revenue, colleague experience and operational control.
When trust breaks down
Low confidence in a WFM system usually shows up in recognisable ways.
Leaders do not trust the demand view or the assumptions behind it
Headcount, absence, skills, shifts or activity data differs from HR, telephony, workflow or reporting systems
The system shows staffing levels that should work by interval, but service, queues, backlog or colleague pressure tell a different story
The system produces outputs, but planners still need to fix them before they are usable
Dashboards and extracts do not reflect what managers, Real Time teams or colleagues experience
Manual workarounds continue because the system is not trusted, not complete or not practical enough
Live data is not accurate, timely or clear enough to support confident in-day decisions
Configuration, issue resolution, data maintenance and optimisation are not clearly owned
Holiday rules, allowances, approvals or planned absence data do not give leaders enough confidence that service risk is being managed.
When this service is needed
This service is relevant when a WFM system is being introduced, yet the implementation needs stronger operational leadership and clearer ownership.
It is also relevant when a system is already in place, but confidence is low. That may show up as disputed forecasts, poor schedule fit, unreliable reporting, inconsistent data, weak adoption, excessive spreadsheet workarounds or unclear ownership after go-live.
In many cases, the problem is that the system has not been fully connected to the way the operation actually works.
A WFM system needs accurate data, realistic assumptions, disciplined processes, practical configuration, operational feedback and clear governance. Without those foundations, a capable system can fail to earn trust.
How we help
Atlantic WFM helps organisations make WFM systems usable, reliable and operationally valuable.
For new implementations, we support the WFM workstream from planning through to go-live. This may include requirements, project sequencing, ownership, forecasting and scheduling setup, output testing, adoption and go-live readiness. The aim is to make sure the WFM elements are operationally ready as well as technically configured.
For existing systems, we usually begin with a practical review. We look at what is trusted, what is disputed, where manual workarounds exist, where configuration is weak, and where the system is not being used to its potential. We then identify the changes most likely to improve confidence, adoption and decision support.
The foundations of a trusted WFM system
Clients gain assurance that forecasting is built on sound methods, properly tested models and outputs robust enough to support planning and decision-making.
They also gain a stronger forecasting approach, better embedded in the planning process and supported by documentation, training and knowledge transfer.
Accurate data
Headcount, skills, shifts, activities, queues, absences, channels and integration feeds all need to be maintained properly. Planning teams need regular contact with operational managers, team leaders and support teams, so changes in people, work, process or channel setup are captured before they damage confidence in the system.
Tested forecasts and assumptions
System forecasts should not be accepted just because the system produced them. They need to be compared with actual demand, simple benchmarks and, where useful, models developed outside the system. Planning assumptions such as handling time, shrinkage, productivity, backlog and service goals need clear ownership and regular challenge.
Scheduling rules that reflect demand and operational reality
A system can only build useful schedules if skills, activities, constraints, leave rules, absence processes and shift options are set up properly. Those rules should be shaped with input from operational leaders and colleagues who understand how the work is actually handled. The configuration needs to balance service, cost, interval fit, operational practicality and colleague experience.
Reporting leaders can trust
Dashboards and database outputs should give a reliable view of forecast accuracy, schedule fit, adherence, shrinkage, absence, backlog, capacity and risk. Reporting also needs to answer the questions leaders are trying to answer, rather than simply exposing the data the system happens to produce.
Real Time teams able to act
Live information on demand, staffing, adherence, absence, queues, backlog and intraday change needs to be accurate enough for Real Time teams to protect service during the day. That depends on close working between Planning, Real Time and Operations, with clear routes for escalating issues and agreeing action.
Processes that keep the system clean
WFM systems deteriorate when updates are informal or poorly owned. Changes to headcount, skills, shifts, activities, assumptions and rules need disciplined routines, handoffs and quality checks. These routines should connect Planning with Operations, HR, IT and other teams that create or know about the changes before they appear in the system.
Governance after go-live
Someone must own configuration, permissions, change control, issue escalation, audit trails and ongoing system value. Governance should also keep the WFM system connected to operational reality, so decisions about setup, reporting and process are not made in isolation by the planning team.
Ongoing evolution and optimisation
A WFM system is not finished at go-live. It needs to evolve as channels, contracts, demand patterns, service goals and operating models change. New releases may also create opportunities to use functionality that was not available, not configured or not adopted at launch. Optimisation depends on regular feedback from the operation, so the system keeps reflecting how work is actually being delivered.
What clients receive
Clients receive practical support shaped around the status of the system and the issues to resolve.
For an implementation, this may include a WFM project plan, clear workstream ownership, requirements definition, test planning, configuration support, output validation, training material and go-live readiness support.
For an existing system, this may include a system review, issue log, prioritised recovery plan, configuration recommendations, improved reporting, stronger governance, fewer manual workarounds and clearer ownership of day-to-day system maintenance.
The aim is to leave the organisation with a system that is more trusted, easier to manage and more useful in operational decision-making.
Outcomes and benefits
A better implemented and governed WFM system helps the organisation get more from technology it has already paid for.
The likely benefits include more reliable data, fewer manual fixes, improved forecasting and scheduling outputs, trusted reporting, higher adoption and more control over service and staffing risk.
These improvements should translate into improved service, tighter cost control, greater protection of revenue opportunities and a better colleague experience.
They also help leaders see whether the system is genuinely supporting the operation or whether further change is needed. A live system is only useful when it is used, trusted and capable of supporting important decisions.
The objective is to prove return from the WFM system investment: not by relying on vendor assurance, but by making the system more useful, more trusted and more influential in the way the operation is managed.
- more accurate and dependable forecasts
- better planning decisions
- clearer assumptions
- reduced risk of overstaffing and understaffing
- improved service and customer experience
- better cost control
- stronger support for revenue performance
- increased capability within your team
Client perspective
Claire Hill, Customer Operations Director
Why Atlantic WFM?
Atlantic WFM is not a software vendor or reseller. Our role is to provide independent operational judgement on whether the system is working for the business.
A vendor may confirm that the software can produce a forecast, generate a schedule or provide a report. That is not the same as proving that the forecast is accurate, the schedule is practical or the report is trusted by the people making decisions.
We test the system from the perspective of the operation. Does it reflect the real workload? Are the assumptions credible? Are the outputs usable? Are leaders acting on the information? Are planners and Real Time teams able to manage the system without creating avoidable manual work? Those are the questions that determine whether the system is delivering value.
Experience across implementation, recovery and optimisation
Philip Stubbs has more than 30 years’ experience working with WFM systems, beginning with the implementation of TCS at Mercury Communications in 1995.
Since then, his work has included WFM system implementation, recovery, review and optimisation across different platforms, operating models and service environments. Relevant experience includes:
- project-managing WFM system implementations
- creating WFM implementation plans and assigning ownership
- setting up and validating WFM forecasts, schedules and planning outputs
- improving use of back-end system data
- supporting outsourcer rollouts and multi-site implementations
- improving use of systems where outputs were not trusted
- fixing configuration, reporting or process issues that created manual workarounds
- helping organisations improve governance after go-live
Frequently asked questions
Do you implement WFM systems?
Yes. We can project-manage the WFM workstream, define requirements, support setup, test outputs, assign owners and help the system become usable in the operation. We can work alongside the client, vendor or internal project team, but we are not a WFM vendor or reseller.
Can you help if our WFM system is already in place?
Yes. Many organisations have a WFM system but are not getting the value they expected. We can review how the system is configured, governed and used, identify where confidence is being lost, and prioritise the changes most likely to improve operational value.
Is this service tied to a particular WFM system?
No. The work is based on WFM principles, operational requirements and practical system use rather than one vendor’s methodology. The specific system matters, but many issues are common across platforms: data quality, assumptions, scheduling rules, reporting, adoption, governance and trust in outputs.
Can you help with forecasting within the WFM system?
Yes. System forecasts can be reviewed and tested against actual demand, simple benchmarks and models developed outside the system. If the system forecast performs poorly, we can help identify whether the issue is data, configuration, model choice, assumptions or the need for a controlled external forecasting process.
Can you help reduce spreadsheet workarounds?
Yes. Spreadsheet workarounds often indicate that the system is not fully trusted, not properly configured, missing key functionality or not supported by the right process. Some workarounds can be removed by using the system more effectively. Others may need to remain, but should be controlled, documented and automated where possible.
What if the vendor says the system is working?
The relevant question is not only whether the system is functioning technically. The question is whether it is supporting operational decisions. A system can be technically live but still fail to provide trusted forecasts, usable schedules, reliable reporting or effective Real Time control.
Request a conversation about WFM System Install & Recovery
If your WFM system is being implemented, underused or not delivering the value expected, book a short conversation to discuss where confidence is being lost and what needs to be fixed.