Sourcing Decision Under Imperfect Data (generic process)

Sourcing Decision Under Imperfect Data (generic process) is the generic process card, GP-403, for the decision a workforce function takes when a near-term placement must be made now, for a financial target, a renewal or a migration, while the measurement estate cannot yet support a fair comparison between the pools the decision chooses among. The disciplines the process applies are documented on Sourcing Strategy Under Imperfect Data: decide now on what is solid under imperfect measurement, select on structure rather than on scores that cannot discriminate, state every assumption with its evidence tier, and instrument every move so that the data foundation is built from the decisions themselves. That page gives disciplines, not steps; this card owns the step sequence that applies them, and links the page once per step rather than restating it. The card's product is a shaped proposal, which it hands to Placement Decision Through the Gate (generic process) with its assumptions grid, its sensitivity table and its evidence-tier statement attached. It is part of Process Standardization and sits under the work-placement section of the function catalog in Anatomy of a ROC Standard.

The card is distinct from the gate card, to which it hands its shaped proposal: the gate is the constraint check a proposal passes through; this process is the shaping of the proposal and the record of what was assumed to shape it. A sourcing decision that skips the grid produces a confident answer whose confidence cannot later be examined, and a relocation that misses, measured on an instrument that cannot separate a new-team effect from a placement effect, manufactures a false lesson that outlives the data that created it. The discipline of stating what is measured, what is estimated and with what range is the one the measurement literature prescribes for decisions whose inputs are uncertain but not unknowable.

Process profile

The profile extends the L0 identity fields of Process Decomposition (L0–L3). Local values are marked SET LOCALLY.

Field	Generic value
Card	GP-403 · local card id assigned by the standards committee at deployment
Class	strategic, in the catalog's four-class vocabulary (strategic · real-time · both · supporting); its horizon is the near term the strategy page defines, a quarter to a year [A]
Trigger	a dated commercial or operational event that forces a placement choice before the comparison estate is ready: a financial target, a client renewal, a migration, a contract expiry, a site decision
Cadence	on demand, by event; the assumptions grid of every open decision is re-read at each monthly recompute pass (SET LOCALLY)
Scope in	the shaping of the proposal: the frame and horizon, the constraints by relax cost and lead time, the two evidence tiers, the comparability map, the structural criteria, the assumptions grid, the sensitivity table, the instrumentation sheet, the recommendation signed as advice, the review dates
Scope out	the six-test check (Placement Decision Through the Gate (generic process)); the long-horizon sourcing programme (Sourcing Strategy Under Cost Pressure); the comparability study's own method (Sourcing Strategy Under Imperfect Data); the vendor scorecard that later reads the instrumented move (Vendor Performance Review Cycle (generic process))
Inputs	counts, contracts, costs on a stated base and tenure records (the hard tier); calibrated estimates with ranges for the unmeasured (the estimate tier); the constraint register; the supply cards; the comparability map; the variable-cost-share audit at 30, 60 and 90 days
Outputs	the shaped proposal in the gate's six fields; the assumptions grid with every input graded; the sensitivity table; the instrumentation sheet; the evidence-tier statement; the recommendation with its assumptions grid, signed as advice; a review date per assumption
Upstream	the capacity plan and its clearing (Monthly Capacity Planning Cycle (generic process)); the definitions register; the renewal calendar; the comparability study
Downstream	the gate (the proposal); the vendor review cycle and the capacity plan (the instrumented move's rows); the data foundation (the definitions the decision found missing); the recompute log
Resources	the assumptions grid; the input grade sheet; the sensitivity table; the comparability map; the supply cards. Platforms are named at L3, never here
Decision points	is a required hard-tier input missing; does any path the decision rests on sit below comparability grade B on the map; does the answer reverse inside the range of any estimated input; has an assumption's review date or change condition fired
Authority tier	per the work-placement row of Decision Authority Tiers in Workforce Operations: the placement lead (tier 3) signs the sourcing recommendation as advice; the function head (tier 4) signs the gate outcome it leads to, in the gate card; the node owner decides outside the function's ladder; a recommendation that changes the design of the network (a node opened or closed) goes to the executive sponsor
Risk and compliance flags	an estimate printed as history; a move justified on a quality instrument that cannot discriminate; a tenure comparison dropped for a small group; a move that banks its benefit and leaves the data as broken as it found it, which is half-executed
Variant-prone steps	the hard-tier pull where a jurisdiction limits what may be recorded; the cost base where a contract prices a different unit; the comparability map where a predecessor organization's instrument is still in use
Automation candidates	two L2 sub-steps (listed below)

L1 flow

Thirteen steps, four decisions. Owners are seats. Each step applies one discipline of Sourcing Strategy Under Imperfect Data and names it once.

1. Frame the question and its horizon: the event date, the body of work, the candidate pools, what the decision must deliver and by when — placement lead. (The strategy page's first statement: start with the work, and expect it to move.)
2. Classify the binding constraints by relax cost and lead time, reading each from the constraint register's strictness classes — placement analyst. (The constraint set replaces the sourcing position.)
3. Pull the hard-tier data: counts, contract terms as written, costs normalised to the stated base, tenure records — reporting analyst. (The evidence-tier discipline: hard data the operation can produce directly.)
4. Is a required hard-tier input missing? — placement lead. Yes → obtain it before the event date, or carry it to the recommendation as a named gap; no → 5.
5. Build the calibrated-estimate tier: every unmeasured input as a range with its grade, prioritised by value of information — placement analyst with the owner of each estimate. (The second tier, never blended with the first.)
6. Grade on the comparability map every comparison path the decision will rest on — method owner. (The comparability study.)
7. Does any path the decision rests on sit below comparability grade B on the map? — method owner. Yes → that path is reported as direction only (C) or separately (D), and the decision rests on structure at step 8; no → 8.
8. Run the structural-criteria check: concentration, integration, chainability, coverage floor, pooling penalty, contract terms — placement analyst. (Selection on structure, not on scores.)
9. Build the assumptions grid: one row per assumption with its statement, grade, source, owner, what would change it and its review date — placement analyst. (Every assumption stated.)
10. Compute the sensitivity table: the answer at each end of every estimated input's range, with the inputs that reverse it named. Does the answer reverse inside any range? — placement analyst. Yes → narrow the range or obtain the input, else carry the reversal on the page; no → 11. (Readable results.)
11. Write the instrumentation sheet for the move: one scorecard at origin and destination, receiving-team tenure recorded, ramp tracked apart from steady state, the definitions the move retires — placement analyst. (Every move instrumented; the hygiene step.)
12. Write the recommendation with its assumptions grid, attach the evidence-tier statement, and sign it as advice — placement lead (tier 3). Hand the shaped proposal, in the gate's six fields, to Placement Decision Through the Gate (generic process), whose step 4 seals the counterfactual.
13. Set a review date per assumption and log them to the recompute pass. Has an assumption's review date or change condition fired? — registers' steward; placement lead, monthly. Yes → rerun from 9; no → the recommendation stands.

L2 step table

The generic sub-steps. The event-date lead time, the value-of-information cut-off, the ranges and platform names are L3 values and read SET LOCALLY.

Step	Sub-step	Owner (seat)	Inputs	Outputs	Duration	Automation candidate	Documentation join key
1	1.1 Write the frame: event, body of work, candidate pools, deliverable, horizon	placement lead	the event; the capacity plan	frame sheet	one sitting	N	L3-403-01
2	2.1 List the binding constraints with strictness class, relax cost and lead time	placement analyst	the constraint register	constraint list	one sitting	N	L3-403-02
3	3.1 Pull counts, contract terms, costs on the stated base and tenure records from the systems of record	reporting analyst	systems of record; the contract register	hard-tier data set with grades	same day	Y (extraction)	L3-403-03
3	3.2 Normalise every cost to the stated base; record the base on the sheet	reporting analyst	rate cards; loaded-cost extracts	normalised cost rows	one sitting	N	L3-403-03
4	4.1 Mark each missing hard-tier input: obtain by date, or carry as a named gap	placement lead	the data set; the event date	gap list	minutes	N	L3-403-03
5	5.1 Elicit each estimate as a range from its owner; assign the grade	placement analyst; estimate owners	the gap list; the unmeasured inputs	estimate rows with ranges	one sitting per owner	N — never	L3-403-04
5	5.2 Order the estimates by value of information; stop below the cut-off (SET LOCALLY)	placement analyst	estimate rows	prioritised estimate tier	minutes	N	L3-403-04
6	6.1 Grade each comparison path on the map	method owner	the comparability map	path grades	minutes	N	L3-403-05
7	7.1 Apply the reporting rule per comparability grade	method owner	path grades	reporting rule per path	minutes	N	L3-403-05
8	8.1 Score each candidate pool on the structural criteria from the hard tier	placement analyst	hard-tier data; constraint list	structural check sheet	one sitting	N	L3-403-06
9	9.1 Write the grid row per assumption	placement analyst	all of the above	assumptions grid	one sitting	N	L3-403-07
10	10.1 Recompute the answer at each end of every range	placement analyst	the grid; the structural check	sensitivity table	minutes	Y (arithmetic)	L3-403-08
10	10.2 Name the reversing inputs; narrow, obtain, or carry	placement analyst	sensitivity table	reversal note	same day	N	L3-403-08
11	11.1 Write the instrumentation sheet and the list of definitions retired	placement analyst	the move; the definitions register	instrumentation sheet	one sitting	N	L3-403-09
12	12.1 Write the recommendation with its assumptions grid and the evidence-tier statement; sign as advice	placement lead	grid; table; sheet	signed recommendation	one sitting	N — never	L3-403-10
12	12.2 Fill the gate's six fields and hand off	placement lead	the recommendation	shaped proposal	minutes	N	L3-403-10
13	13.1 Log a review date per assumption; walk them monthly	registers' steward; placement lead	the grid	recompute entries	monthly	N	L3-403-11

Variants

The known variant classes, recorded per Standard and Variant in Process Documentation:

• Statutory. A jurisdiction that restricts what may be recorded about individuals limits the tenure and attrition inputs to aggregates; step 3.1 is varied to carry the aggregate with its grade, the works-council liaison owns the step, and the function head approves on legal advice.
• Contractual. A contract that prices a different unit (per contact, per resolved case, per productive hour) is a cost-base parameter of step 3.2, marked SET LOCALLY and normalised to the stated base before comparison; it takes no variant row.
• Structural. A pool that is telemetry-dark, with no instrument the estate can read, cannot carry a graded comparison and sits at comparability grade D on the map; step 8 is varied to exclude it from any scored comparison and to decide its placement on structure alone, with a review date each quarter until an instrument exists.
• Transitional. A predecessor organization's quality instrument still in use for a body of work keeps that body's comparison paths at comparability grade C under a variant row with an expiry at the instrument's retirement date, which the standards committee records; the retirement is the hygiene step the strategy page requires of every standard adopted.

L3 register

A localizing team writes these job aids against the generic L2; names only, the content is the function's. The assumptions grid and the input grade sheet are the two the card exists for: a sourcing decision without them is a sourcing position, the thing the method exists to avoid.

Job aid	Anchored to	Form
L3-403-01 The frame sheet	step 1	work instruction
L3-403-02 The constraint list by relax cost and lead time	step 2	work instruction; classes on Placement Engine Architecture
L3-403-03 The hard-tier pull specification and the cost-base sheet	steps 3 to 4	work instruction
L3-403-04 The input grade sheet and the calibrated-estimate elicitation	step 5	work instruction; grades per Human Gates and Number Grades
L3-403-05 The comparability map and the reporting rule per comparability grade	steps 6 to 7	work instruction; method on Sourcing Strategy Under Imperfect Data
L3-403-06 The structural-criteria check sheet	step 8	work instruction; arithmetic on Pooling Architecture in Service Workforces
L3-403-07 The assumptions grid layout	step 9	work instruction
L3-403-08 The sensitivity table and the reversal note	step 10	work instruction
L3-403-09 The instrumentation sheet and the retired-definitions list	step 11	playbook
L3-403-10 The recommendation form and the evidence-tier statement	step 12	work instruction
L3-403-11 The review-date log and the monthly walk	step 13	playbook
L3-403-12 The decision when a required hard-tier input cannot be obtained by the event date	step 4	runbook

Two conventions govern the writing. An estimate carries its range on every page it appears on, never as a point; and a tenure comparison is never dropped for a small group, because a higher score from a long-tenured team against a lower score from a new one may describe the same capability at two costs, and the trade-off is the decision object. The sensitivity table exists because a decision evaluated on average inputs is not, in general, the decision's value under the inputs' actual variation; the table is the decision-analysis tornado diagram in tabular form, each input swung across its range with the others held at their base values, which is the standard first pass for finding the inputs that matter.

Automation candidates

Flagged at L2 per Process Decomposition (L0–L3); released per class of action on a published catch rate per Human Gates and Number Grades, never on a maturity label. The list is ranked by how easy a catch rate is to publish: the two L2 rows marked Y, in order. This process has few candidates, by design.

1. The hard-tier data pull (3.1): counts, contract terms, costs and tenure records from the systems of record; deterministic, and first because every error is a row the sheet can count.
2. The sensitivity table (10.1): ranks after the pull because it is arithmetic only once the grid exists, and its catch rate depends on the ranges the grid carries being the ranges their owners gave; the overseer checks that correspondence, not the arithmetic.

Nothing else is a candidate. The selection of the structural criterion is a judgment about which risk the estate can bear. The assumption statements and the calibrated estimates (5.1) are human expectations with ranges, and the pairing of a stated expectation with an observed result is how the function later learns whether its estimators are calibrated; an estimate generated by a rule has no such pairing. The evidence-tier assignment is the line a function draws between what it knows and what it believes, and a rule that drew it would blend the tiers the method keeps apart. The recommendation (12.1) is the signatory's own.

Maturity Model Position

Four scales on this wiki use the word level; the launch page states which is which. On the WFM Labs Maturity Model™ placement by episodic argument, with data quality invoked to defer or ignored to force, is Level 2; a function that names the two tracks, keeps the assumptions grid and the input grade sheet on every near-term move and has run the comparability study is at Level 3, which is the process this card defines; one on which the hand-run check is routine, the supply cards are current and the evidence tiers are enforced in the format is at Level 4, as Sourcing Strategy Under Imperfect Data places it.

See Also

• Process Standardization — the hub and the inventory this card belongs to
• Sourcing Strategy Under Imperfect Data — the disciplines this flow applies: two tracks, the evidence tiers, the comparability study, the data doctrine
• Placement Decision Through the Gate (generic process) — the check the shaped proposal is handed to
• Placement Rules and the Tenure Contract — the discriminating question and the three supply types the proposal chooses among
• Sourcing Strategy Under Cost Pressure — the two-horizon programme the near-term decision sits inside
• Sourcing Design Axes: Node and Client Ownership — the design surface
• Decision Authority Tiers in Workforce Operations — the tier ladder the Authority row follows
• Human Gates and Number Grades — the grades the assumptions grid carries
• Standard and Variant in Process Documentation — how the variants above are recorded
• Wiki:Packs/Placement Decision Engine Build — the pack that builds the register and the supply cards (CP-WFM-008)