Specialist Workforce Management consultancy & delivery

WFM System Install & Recovery

Make your WFM system trusted, usable and worth the investment

A WFM system should give leaders a reliable basis for planning and operational control. It should make future staffing risk clearer and help the operation use its available resource effectively.

Some systems go live without earning the confidence of the people expected to use them. The technology may be functioning, but its outputs are questioned and teams continue to work around it. In practice, the system is not yet providing the value expected.

Atlantic WFM provides independent expertise for organisations implementing a new system or recovering one that is not delivering the expected value. We assess whether the system reflects operational reality and supports the decisions leaders need to make.

When trust in a WFM system breaks down

Low confidence usually shows up in recognisable ways:
1. Forecasts are regularly challenged
Leaders do not trust the view of future demand or the assumptions behind it
2 System data does not match other systems
The WFM system’s records of headcount, working hours, absence, skills and activity do not agree with those held elsewhere.
3 The interval staffing view does not match real experience
The system indicates that staffing should be sufficient, yet service does not meet expectations and the operation remains under pressure.
4 Schedules require substantial manual correction
The system produces schedules, but planners still need to change them before they can be used.
5 Reports do not match what actually happened
Dashboards and extracts do not give leaders and managers a reliable view of performance or show where action is needed.
6 The operation still relies on spreadsheets
Manual workarounds remain for processes the WFM system was intended to automate.
7 Real Time teams lack the information needed to drive performance
Real Time teams cannot obtain a reliable view of current conditions quickly enough to make confident in-day decisions.
8 Advisor schedules do not accurately reflect planned activity
Meetings, coaching and other planned offline activity may be missing or recorded incorrectly, making schedules & adherence unreliable.
9 Annual leave planning is difficult to control
The system does not provide a reliable view of planned absence or the resulting service risk. Recorded annual leave and remaining allowances may also be disputed.
10 System issues remain unresolved
Problems persist, requested changes are delayed and users do not know who is dealing with them or when they will be resolved.
1. Forecasts are regularly challenged
Leaders do not trust the view of future demand or the assumptions behind it
2 System data does not match other systems
The WFM system’s records of headcount, working hours, absence, skills and activity do not agree with those held elsewhere.
3 The interval staffing view does not match real experience
The system indicates that staffing should be sufficient, yet service does not meet expectations and the operation remains under pressure.
4 Schedules require substantial manual correction
The system produces schedules, but planners still need to change them before they can be used.
5 Reports do not match what actually happened
Dashboards and extracts do not give leaders and managers a reliable view of performance or show where action is needed.
6 The operation still relies on spreadsheets
Manual workarounds remain for processes the WFM system was intended to automate.
7 Real Time teams lack the information needed to drive performance
Real Time teams cannot obtain a reliable view of current conditions quickly enough to make confident in-day decisions.
8 Advisor schedules do not accurately reflect planned activity
Meetings, coaching and other planned offline activity may be missing or recorded incorrectly, making schedules & adherence unreliable.
9 Annual leave planning is difficult to control
The system does not provide a reliable view of planned absence or the resulting service risk. Recorded annual leave and remaining allowances may also be disputed.
10 System issues remain unresolved
Problems persist, requested changes are delayed and users do not know who is dealing with them or when they will be resolved.

These symptoms do not necessarily mean the technology has failed. More often, confidence is lost because the system and the operation around it are not working together effectively.

How we help

Our work follows one of two main routes. In both, we can carry out the work and confirm that the system supports the operation as intended.
New WFM system implementation
We can lead or support the WFM workstream from planning through to go-live. We make sure the system reflects how the operation works, produces reliable planning outputs and is usable by the people who depend on it.

A successful implementation also depends on the processes around the technology. We establish how operational changes will reach the system, who is responsible and the internal service levels that apply. We resolve problems before go-live and leave the operation able to use and maintain the system confidently.
Existing WFM system recovery or optimisation
We diagnose why the system is not trusted by tracing disputed outputs back through the system and the processes around it. We also examine whether it works in practice for people across the customer operation.

Once the causes are understood, we carry out the recovery work. We correct the causes of unreliable outputs, rebuild schedules where interval coverage is poor and remove workarounds where the system can take their place. We also strengthen the processes that keep the system current, with clear responsibility and agreed service levels for operational changes.

Corrected outputs are tested against operational reality before they are relied upon.

For both types of engagement, the aim is a system that is more trusted, easier to manage and more useful in operational decisions.

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.

Core workforce and workload data must be accurate, current and reconciled to source systems. Forecasts should be tested against actual demand and credible benchmarks, while other planning assumptions need supporting evidence, clear ownership and regular review.

The organisation should specify which decisions WFM will support, who owns them and when each output is required. This should cover annual leave, scheduling and interval planning, with clear routes for approval and escalation.

Scheduling rules should reflect demand, contractual commitments and the way work is handled. They should produce workable schedules without excessive manual correction.

Resource requirements, schedules and staffing positions should be checked against source data and realistic operational scenarios before they are relied upon. Validation should be repeated regularly to ensure resource positions are reliable.

Real Time teams need an accurate and timely view of current demand, performance, available staffing and adherence. The information should allow them to escalate performance issues, balance work and deploy resource confidently throughout the day.

Reports should give leaders a reliable view of planning performance, available capacity and operational risk. Measures must be consistent, understood and timely enough for the decisions they support.

Colleagues should be able to view their schedules and manage routine requests through a simple, reliable self-service process. Clear rules and approval routes should reduce administration without weakening operational control.

System information and configuration need clear maintenance routines and quality checks. Changes within the operation should have a defined owner and reach the system accurately and on time.

Governance should define system ownership, authority to make changes and the process for approving them. It should provide a clear route for resolving issues and support regular review so the system continues to evolve with the operation.

Outcomes and benefits

A better implemented and governed WFM system can help the organisation:

Client perspective

“Their forecasting and capacity modelling work was invaluable, giving us the clarity and confidence to make informed operational decisions.”
Claire Hill, Customer Operations Director

Why Atlantic WFM?

Independent operational expertise
Atlantic WFM provides independent advice and has no software to sell. We assess the system from the perspective of the operation and the decisions it needs to support.

Does the system reflect the real workload? Are the assumptions credible? Are forecasts tested? Are schedules practical? Can leaders trust the reports? Can planners and Real Time teams use the system without excessive manual work? These questions determine whether the system is delivering operational value.

Experience across implementation, recovery and optimisation
Philip Stubbs has more than 30 years’ experience getting the best out of 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.

Frequently asked questions

Yes. We can manage the WFM workstream, define requirements, support setup, test outputs, assign owners and prepare the operation for go-live. We can work alongside the client, vendor or internal project team.

Yes. 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.

No. The work is based on WFM principles, operational requirements and practical system use. Data, assumptions, scheduling rules, reporting, adoption and governance need attention across different platforms.

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.

A technically functioning system can still produce disputed forecasts, impractical schedules or reporting that leaders do not trust. We assess whether the system is supporting the operation and its decisions effectively.

A technically functioning system can still produce disputed forecasts, impractical schedules or reporting that leaders do not trust. We assess whether the system is supporting the operation and its decisions effectively.

Request a conversation about WFM System Install & Recovery

If your WFM system is being implemented, underused or not delivering the expected value, we can discuss where confidence is being lost and what would help.