WFM Goals

New WFM Goals

The future WFM standard outlines both traditional goals and new goals to address the changing dynamics described the drivers behind the need for change, with special emphasis on "uncertainty".

Why Goals Matter in Workforce Management

Goals serve as the North Star for workforce management organizations, providing direction, enabling measurement, and creating accountability. They transform abstract concepts like "good service" or "efficiency" into concrete, measurable targets that teams can work toward. Without well-defined goals, WFM becomes reactive rather than strategic, fighting fires instead of building capabilities.

Yet the selection and definition of goals is far from universal. What constitutes "good" performance varies dramatically across industries, companies, and even departments within the same organization. A luxury brand may prioritize accessibility and immediate response, while a cost-conscious operation might accept longer wait times in exchange for efficiency. These aren't right or wrong approaches—they're strategic choices aligned to business models and customer expectations.

The Nuance of Metric Definition

Every metric can be calculated multiple ways, each revealing different aspects of performance. Consider Service Level: should abandons within threshold be included or excluded? Should it be measured at interval, daily, or monthly levels? Should different channels have different targets? Each choice reflects organizational priorities and operational realities.

This multiplicity extends across all metrics. Forecast accuracy can use MAPE, WAPE, or RMSE. Adherence can be measured as conformance or schedule adherence. Occupancy might include or exclude certain auxiliary states. These aren't mere technical details—they embody philosophical choices about what matters most to your operation.

Organizations must also consider the interplay between metrics. Pursuing aggressive AHT reduction might boost capacity but harm quality and employee experience. Maximizing occupancy improves efficiency but increases burnout risk. Every goal exists in tension with others, requiring thoughtful balance rather than blind optimization.

A Framework, Not a Prescription

The goals and metrics presented in this framework—spanning from foundational Level 1 metrics to pioneering Level 5 capabilities—are designed as a guide for your journey, not a rigid prescription. Some organizations will find certain metrics essential while others irrelevant. A healthcare contact center may need to track clinical accuracy while a sales operation focuses on conversion rates. Both are correct for their context.

We've organized these goals across five maturity levels, mixing time-tested traditional metrics with emerging measures designed for the Collaborative Intelligence Era. The traditional metrics remain relevant because the fundamentals of customer contact haven't changed—customers still want their issues resolved quickly and accurately. But the new metrics acknowledge that achieving these fundamentals sustainably requires attention to employee experience, variance management, and the human side of automation.

Your Path Forward

As you explore these goals, consider:

Which metrics align with your strategic priorities?
How might traditional definitions need adjustment for your context?
What's the right balance between efficiency and experience metrics?
How can new metrics help address current operational pain points?
What measurement capabilities need development to track advanced metrics?

Few, if any organizations will implement every metric presented here. Others will select a focused subset. Many will adapt these definitions to fit their unique needs. All of these approaches are valid. The key is intentional choice—understanding what you're measuring, why it matters, and how it connects to broader organizational objectives.

The journey from Level 1 to Level 5 isn't about checking boxes or implementing every metric. It's about progressively building capabilities that enable your organization to thrive in an environment of increasing complexity and constant change. The goals you choose and how you define them should reflect your unique path through this transformation.

Maturity Overview (Goals by Level)

Level	Stage	Metrics Added	Key Outcomes
1	Initial	Basic SL, AHT, Occupancy, ABA, ASA, Adherence	Establish measurement
2	Foundational	WAPE, Minimal Interval Error Rate (aka Minimal Error Rate/MIV), SQI, Forecast Accuracy – Attrition/Retention	Governance & consistency
3	Progressive	AAR, VCE, SCR, Service Level Stability (SLS), MTTR for Intraday Variance	Variance harvesting
4	Advanced	Probabilistic Staffing Bands (P50/P80/P95), OVF, Scenario Robustness, Risk Ratings (SL/Financial/Employee)	Probabilistic planning
5	Pioneering	CLV Impact, Learning Velocity, Fairness Index, Time‑to‑Rollback (TTR), DQS (placeholder)	Autonomous optimization

Level 1 — Initial / Manual (Establish Measurement)

At Level 1, organizations establish the foundational metrics that form the bedrock of workforce management. These metrics provide basic visibility into contact center performance and create the measurement infrastructure necessary for advancement to higher maturity levels.

Service Level (SL)

Service Level represents the percentage of calls answered within a defined threshold time, serving as the primary measure of customer accessibility and operational effectiveness.

Definition

Service Level measures the percentage of contacts (calls, chats, emails) handled within a target time threshold. The most common standard is 80/20 (80% of calls answered within 20 seconds), though this varies by industry and channel.

Formula

$Service Level = \frac{Calls answered within threshold}{Total calls offered} \times 100 %$

Alternative calculation (excluding abandons within threshold): $Service Level = \frac{Calls answered within threshold}{Total calls offered - Abandons within threshold} \times 100 %$

Industry Examples

Industry	Common Target	Threshold Time	Rationale
Emergency Services	95%	10 seconds	Life-critical response
Financial Services	80%	20 seconds	Balance of service and cost
Retail/E-commerce	70%	30 seconds	Cost-conscious, seasonal variance
Technical Support	70%	60 seconds	Complex inquiry preparation
Government Services	80%	30 seconds	Public service obligation
Healthcare	90%	30 seconds	Patient care priority

Channel-Specific Targets

Voice: 80% in 20-30 seconds
Chat: 80% in 120 seconds (first response)
Email: 90% in 24 hours
Social Media: 80% in 60 minutes

Calculation Example

Metric	Value
Total Calls Offered	5,000
Answered Within 20 seconds	3,850
Abandoned Within 20 seconds	150
Service Level (including abandons)	77.0%
Service Level (excluding abandons)	79.4%

Key Considerations

Service level is measured at interval (typically 15 or 30 minutes), daily, weekly, and monthly levels
Peak hour service level often differs significantly from average daily performance
Consider both offered and answered service level depending on abandon treatment
Balance service level goals with cost constraints and employee experience

Average Speed of Answer (ASA)

Average Speed of Answer represents the average time callers wait in queue before connecting with an agent.

Definition

ASA measures the average time from when a call enters the queue until it is answered by an agent, excluding IVR time but including ring time.

Formula

$ASA = \frac{\sum Wait time for all answered calls}{Total answered calls}$

Industry Benchmarks

Performance Level	ASA Range	Customer Perception
Excellent	0-20 seconds	Immediate service
Good	21-45 seconds	Acceptable wait
Fair	46-90 seconds	Noticeable delay
Poor	91-180 seconds	Frustrating wait
Critical	>180 seconds	Unacceptable, high abandonment risk

Relationship to Service Level

ASA of 20 seconds with 80% SL typically indicates well-balanced staffing
ASA of 30+ seconds with 80% SL suggests long tail of extended waits
ASA should be reviewed alongside service level distribution, not just average

Calculation Example

Hour	Calls Answered	Total Wait Time	ASA
8:00 AM	145	2,900 seconds	20.0 seconds
9:00 AM	213	6,390 seconds	30.0 seconds
10:00 AM	198	9,900 seconds	50.0 seconds
11:00 AM	176	5,280 seconds	30.0 seconds
Total	732	24,470 seconds	33.4 seconds

Abandonment Rate (ABA)

Abandonment Rate measures the percentage of customers who disconnect before reaching an agent.

Definition

The percentage of offered calls where the caller hangs up before connecting with an agent, typically excluding abandons within a short threshold (e.g., 5 seconds).

Formula

$Abandonment Rate = \frac{Abandoned calls}{Total offered calls} \times 100 %$

Adjusted formula (excluding short abandons): $Adjusted ABA = \frac{Abandons after threshold}{Total offered - Abandons before threshold} \times 100 %$

Industry Targets

Industry	Acceptable Range	Critical Threshold	Notes
Sales/Revenue	2-3%	>5%	Lost revenue impact
Customer Service	3-5%	>8%	Service standard
Technical Support	5-7%	>10%	Complex inquiry tolerance
Collections	7-10%	>15%	Caller reluctance factor
Emergency Services	<2%	>3%	Critical service requirement

Abandon Timing Analysis

Time in Queue	Typical Abandon %	Cumulative Abandons
0-5 seconds	5%	5%
6-30 seconds	15%	20%
31-60 seconds	25%	45%
61-120 seconds	30%	75%
121-180 seconds	15%	90%
>180 seconds	10%	100%

Key Drivers

Queue wait time (strongest correlation)
Time of day/day of week patterns
IVR experience and messaging
Callback option availability
Customer urgency/value of interaction

Average Handle Time (AHT)

Average Handle Time represents the total time required to complete a customer interaction.

Definition

AHT encompasses the entire customer interaction duration, including talk time, hold time, and after-call work (ACW).

Formula

$AHT = \frac{Total Talk Time + Total Hold Time + Total ACW Time}{Total Calls Handled}$

Component breakdown: $AHT = ATT + AHT + ACW$

Where:

ATT = Average Talk Time
AHT = Average Hold Time
ACW = After-Call Work

Industry Benchmarks

Contact Type	Typical AHT	Components (Talk/Hold/ACW)
Simple Inquiry	180-240 seconds	150/10/20
Account Service	300-420 seconds	240/30/30
Technical Support	480-720 seconds	360/60/60
Sales	360-600 seconds	420/30/90
Collections	420-540 seconds	360/20/40
Complex Resolution	600-900 seconds	480/90/120

Channel Comparison

Channel	Typical Handle Time	Concurrency	Efficiency Factor
Voice	360 seconds	1.0	1.0x
Chat	600 seconds	2.5	0.7x
Email	480 seconds	N/A	1.3x
SMS	180 seconds	4.0	0.5x
Social Media	420 seconds	3.0	0.6x

AHT Optimization Balance

Reducing AHT improves capacity but may harm quality
Monitor First Call Resolution (FCR) alongside AHT changes
Consider customer satisfaction impact of rushed interactions
Track repeat contact rate when implementing AHT reduction initiatives

Occupancy

Occupancy measures the percentage of logged-in time that agents spend handling customer contacts.

Definition

The ratio of handle time to total available time, indicating how "busy" agents are during their logged-in time.

Formula

$Occupancy = \frac{Total Handle Time}{Total Available Time} \times 100 %$

Alternative calculation: $Occupancy = \frac{Talk Time + Hold Time + ACW Time}{Sign-in Time - Aux Time} \times 100 %$

Occupancy Targets by Size

Agent Count	Target Occupancy	Maximum Sustainable	Burnout Risk Zone
5-10 agents	65-70%	75%	>80%
11-25 agents	70-75%	80%	>85%
26-50 agents	75-80%	85%	>87%
51-100 agents	80-83%	87%	>90%
100+ agents	83-85%	90%	>92%

Occupancy Impact Analysis

Occupancy Level	Agent Experience	Service Impact	Efficiency
<60%	Underutilized, bored	Excellent response	Poor cost efficiency
60-75%	Comfortable pace	Good flexibility	Moderate efficiency
75-85%	Productive, engaged	Standard service	Good efficiency
85-90%	Stressed, pressured	Degraded flexibility	High efficiency
>90%	Burnout risk	Poor response time	Unsustainable

Erlang Relationship

Occupancy naturally increases with team size (economies of scale)
Small teams require lower occupancy targets to maintain service levels
Occupancy and service level have an inverse relationship at high utilization

Key Considerations

Balance efficiency goals with agent wellbeing
Account for channel differences (chat allows higher occupancy)
Consider break/auxiliary time in calculations
Monitor alongside employee satisfaction metrics

Schedule Adherence

Schedule Adherence measures how closely agents follow their assigned schedules.

Definition

The percentage of scheduled time that agents are in the correct state (available, break, lunch, training, etc.) at the correct time.

Formula

$Adherence = \frac{Time in adherence}{Total scheduled time} \times 100 %$

Conformance (alternative metric): $Conformance = \frac{Total time worked}{Total time scheduled} \times 100 %$

Industry Standards

Environment	Target Adherence	Acceptable Range	Notes
Strict scheduling	95-98%	93-100%	High control environment
Standard operations	90-95%	88-97%	Typical contact center
Flexible workplace	85-90%	82-93%	Work-from-home considerations
Blended environment	80-85%	75-88%	Multi-skill, project work

Adherence Exception Categories

Category	Typical %	Acceptable?	Action Required
Scheduled breaks/lunch	N/A	Yes	None (in adherence)
Unscheduled break	2-3%	Conditional	Monitor pattern
System issues	1-2%	Yes	Track and resolve
Training overflow	1-2%	Yes	Adjust schedules
Personal emergency	0.5%	Yes	Document only
Coaching extension	1-2%	Yes	Coordinate with supervisor
Unauthorized	<1%	No	Progressive discipline

Calculation Example

Time Period	Scheduled State	Actual State	In Adherence?
9:00-10:00	Available	Available	✓ (60 min)
10:00-10:15	Break	Break	✓ (15 min)
10:15-11:00	Available	Available (10:20 start)	✗ (5 min out)
11:00-12:00	Available	Available	✓ (60 min)
12:00-1:00	Lunch	Lunch	✓ (60 min)
Total Scheduled: 240 minutes			In Adherence: 235 minutes
Adherence %			97.9%

Implementation Best Practices

Start with education, not enforcement
Allow reasonable grace periods (2-3 minutes)
Consider different standards for different activities
Focus on patterns, not individual infractions
Balance adherence with employee flexibility needs

Measurement Infrastructure Requirements

Data Collection Systems

ACD/Phone System: Real-time call statistics
WFM Software: Schedule management and adherence tracking
Reporting Platform: Historical analysis and trending
Display Boards: Real-time visibility for floor management

Reporting Cadence

Metric	Real-time	Interval	Daily	Weekly	Monthly
Service Level	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
ASA	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Abandonment	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
AHT		✓	✓	✓	✓
Occupancy	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Adherence	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

Success Criteria for Level 1

All six core metrics consistently measured and reported
Historical data available for at least 13 weeks
Real-time visibility established for critical metrics
Basic targets set based on business requirements
Regular review cadence established with stakeholders

Summary

Level 1 metrics establish the foundation for workforce management excellence. These six core metrics—Service Level, ASA, Abandonment, AHT, Occupancy, and Adherence—provide essential visibility into contact center performance. Organizations must master consistent measurement and reporting of these metrics before advancing to more sophisticated analytics and optimization strategies found in higher maturity levels.

Level 2 — Foundational (Governance & Consistency)

At Level 2 we standardize metric definitions and governance and add accuracy measures fit for purpose (WAPE, Minimal Interval Error Rate) along with schedule‑fit (SQI) and supply‑side forecasting (attrition/retention).

Weighted Absolute Percentage Error (WAPE)

WAPE represents the gold standard for measuring forecast accuracy in workforce management, providing a weighted view of forecast performance that appropriately scales errors based on volume magnitude rather than treating all intervals equally.

Definition

Weighted Absolute Percentage Error measures forecast accuracy by calculating the sum of absolute errors divided by the sum of actual values, preventing the distortion that occurs with simple averaging of percentage errors. Unlike MAPE (Mean Absolute Percentage Error), which can overweight errors in low-volume periods, WAPE provides proportional weighting based on actual volumes.

Formula

$WAPE = \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{n} | A_{i} - F_{i} |}{\sum_{i = 1}^{n} A_{i}} \times 100 %$

Where:

A_i = Actual value for period i
F_i = Forecasted value for period i
n = Number of periods

Alternative representation: $WAPE = \frac{Sum of Absolute Errors}{Sum of Actuals} \times 100 %$

Why WAPE Over Other Metrics

Metric	Formula	Strength	Weakness	When to Use
WAPE	A-F\|/ΣA	Volume-weighted accuracy	Can mask interval variance	Primary WFM metric
MAPE	A-F\|/A	Simple interpretation	Overweights low volumes	Never for intervals
RMSE	√[(1/n)Σ(A-F)²]	Penalizes large errors	Not percentage-based	Model comparison
MAE	A-F\|	Absolute scale	No volume context	Fixed volume queues
MASE	MAE/MAE_naive	Scale-independent	Complex interpretation	Cross-queue comparison

Calculation Example - Daily WAPE

Consider a day with varying call volumes across 12 hours:

Hour	Forecast	Actual	Error	Absolute Error	% Error
8:00	145	152	-7	7	-4.6%
9:00	287	298	-11	11	-3.7%
10:00	412	389	23	23	5.9%
11:00	398	421	-23	23	-5.5%
12:00	267	251	16	16	6.4%
13:00	189	198	-9	9	-4.5%
14:00	234	245	-11	11	-4.5%
15:00	356	341	15	15	4.4%
16:00	298	312	-14	14	-4.5%
17:00	245	238	7	7	2.9%
18:00	178	186	-8	8	-4.3%
19:00	89	92	-3	3	-3.3%
Total	3,098	3,123	-25	147
WAPE = 147 / 3,123 × 100%					4.71%
Simple Average of % Errors					4.49%
MAPE (Mean Absolute % Error)					4.52%

Note how WAPE (4.71%) differs from both the simple average and MAPE, providing a more accurate representation weighted by actual volumes.

Interval-Level WAPE Calculation

For a more granular view, calculate WAPE at the interval level:

Interval	Forecast	Actual	Abs Error	Cumulative Forecast	Cumulative Actual	Cumulative Abs Error	Running WAPE
8:00	36	38	2	36	38	2	5.3%
8:15	37	39	2	73	77	4	5.2%
8:30	38	37	1	111	114	5	4.4%
8:45	34	38	4	145	152	9	5.9%
9:00	68	71	3	213	223	12	5.4%
9:15	72	75	3	285	298	15	5.0%
9:30	74	77	3	359	375	18	4.8%
9:45	73	75	2	432	450	20	4.4%

WAPE Interpretation Guidelines

Queue Size (Annual)	Excellent	Good	Acceptable	Needs Improvement
>10M calls	<3%	3-5%	5-7%	>7%
5M-10M calls	<4%	4-6%	6-8%	>8%
1M-5M calls	<5%	5-7%	7-10%	>10%
500K-1M calls	<6%	6-9%	9-12%	>12%
100K-500K calls	<8%	8-12%	12-15%	>15%
<100K calls	<10%	10-15%	15-20%	>20%

Time Horizon Considerations

WAPE varies significantly based on the time horizon measured:

Time Horizon	Typical WAPE Range	Volatility Factor	Use Case
Annual	2-5%	Very Low	Capacity planning
Monthly	3-8%	Low	Budget planning
Weekly	5-12%	Medium	Staff planning
Daily	5-15%	High	Schedule creation
Interval	10-30%	Very High	Real-time management

Relationship to Minimal Interval Variance

WAPE must be interpreted alongside the Minimal Interval Variance (MIV) to understand achievable accuracy:

Achievable WAPE Formula: $Achievable WAPE = MIV + Systematic Error$

Where:

MIV = Natural randomness that cannot be forecasted
Systematic Error = Improvable forecast error from model or inputs

For a queue averaging 50 calls per interval:

MIV ≈ 14.1% (using √n/n formula)
If actual WAPE = 18%, then Systematic Error = 3.9%
Improvement opportunity = 3.9%, not 18%

WAPE Decomposition Analysis

Break down WAPE by contributing factors:

Error Source	Typical Contribution	Detection Method	Improvement Strategy
Day-of-week pattern	25-35%	DOW analysis	Seasonal models
Intraday pattern	20-30%	Interval distribution	Profile refinement
Special events	15-25%	Event correlation	Calendar integration
Trend misalignment	10-20%	Trend analysis	Rolling forecasts
Random variation	20-30%	MIV calculation	Cannot eliminate

Multi-Level WAPE Tracking

Organizations should track WAPE at multiple levels:

Level	Calculation	Target	Review Frequency
Interval	30-min segments	Information only	Real-time
Daily	Full day	Primary goal	Daily
Weekly	7-day roll-up	Trending	Weekly
Monthly	Calendar month	Strategic	Monthly
Queue-level	By service type	Comparison	Weekly
Enterprise	All queues	Executive	Monthly

WAPE Best Practices

Consistent Calculation**
- Always exclude intervals with zero actuals
- Use same time periods for comparison
- Document any calculation adjustments

Segmentation Analysis**
- Calculate separately for different day types
- Segment by volume bands
- Analyze patterns in high-error periods

Goal Setting**
- Base targets on queue size and volatility
- Consider operational constraints
- Allow for seasonal variation

Continuous Improvement**
- Weekly review of worst-performing periods
- Root cause analysis for >2σ errors
- Model refinement based on error patterns

Common WAPE Pitfalls

Pitfall	Impact	Prevention
Including zero-volume periods	Artificially inflated WAPE	Filter before calculation
Comparing different time horizons	Misleading conclusions	Standardize comparisons
Ignoring MIV	Unrealistic targets	Calculate and communicate MIV
Over-aggregation	Hidden interval issues	Multi-level tracking
Seasonal comparison	Unfair assessment	Year-over-year comparison

Integration with Other Metrics

WAPE should be reviewed alongside:

Schedule Quality Index (SQI): Poor WAPE limits achievable SQI
Service Level Achievement: WAPE errors compound into service impacts
Occupancy Variance: Forecast errors drive occupancy volatility
Overtime/VTO Usage: WAPE directly correlates with schedule adjustments

Summary

WAPE provides the most balanced and appropriate measure of forecast accuracy for workforce management, avoiding the distortions inherent in other percentage-based metrics. By weighting errors proportionally to volume, WAPE gives organizations a true picture of forecast performance that directly relates to operational impact. Combined with Minimal Interval Variance analysis, WAPE enables realistic goal-setting and focused improvement efforts that acknowledge both controllable and uncontrollable sources of forecast error.

Forecast Accuracy Goals: Call Volume

For decades, much has been published on mathematical methods geared toward time-series forecasting and forecast accuracy. Forecast accuracy has long been a concern of senior management, especially when missing either service level objectives or expense targets. "How accurate was our forecast?" has been heard by all WFM leaders, as if the lack of accuracy would provide an excuse (or scapegoat) for why contact center objectives were missed.

The new WFM standard maintains that forecast accuracy is important goal & metric to establish and leverage continuously. Only by reflecting on how accurate our forecasts are can we drive conversation and ask "why?" a model was off. The critical outcome behind leveraging forecast accuracy is to facilitate uncovering drivers behind any variable which can contribute to the overall completeness of our forecast.

This standard recommends establishing a forecast accuracy metric, at minimum on call volume, and incorporating some concepts in determining how to establish the metric. Questions to ask in establishing a forecast accuracy target:

What is the queue size you are forecasting for? A queue that delivers 12 million calls annually will have a tighter forecast accuracy target than a queue delivering 1.2 million calls annually.
What are your hours of operation? Contact centers which are open 8 hours a day, 5 days a week will have a tighter forecast accuracy target than the same call volume delivered over a 24-hour, 7 day a week operation.
What type of business drivers can be exposed that have predictable correlations? In certain industries, call volumes can be closely tied with predictable events, such as a marketing mailer. Other industries may use subscriber data, policy holder data or other customer counts to correlate to a predictable inquiry rate. Furthermore, some industries have predictable contact rate with seasonality, such as the travel industry, but can suffer in forecast accuracy from non-predictable events, such as storms.
What is your historical track record for forecast accuracy? While you may not be satisfied by simply trending average forecast accuracy and establishing this as a goal, it is useful to look at the performance of various forecasters in establishing or adjusting forecast accuracy goals.
What time horizons do you wish to examine forecast accuracy, interval, daily, weekly, monthly, annually? Each time horizon should be monitored for accuracy, but you will likely want to establish a goal on one time horizon rather than many time horizons. Often, teams will focus on a daily accuracy goal, as WFM software cares for distributing the call volume down to the interval level.

This standard does not recommend following the often-publicized advice of "+/-5 percent accuracy as the industry standard". No such standard exists, nor should it, given the wide range of variables contributing to any team's ability to forecast accurately, and the nature of variability across differing time horizons.

This standard does recommend queue size as the leading indicator for establishing your forecast accuracy goals, and further recommends leveraging the weighted absolute percentage error (WAPE) method for tracking forecast accuracy.

Examining the WAPE method, we presented a day where 2,952 calls were forecasted across a time horizon lasting from 8:00AM to 8:00PM:

In the above example, each absolute interval variance is calculated, with a weighted absolute percentage error of 5.98% total. When we compare the pure error rate for the day, we see we forecast 2953 against an actual of 3012, or -2.0%. Whether we think this is good or not begins at the interval level, and can be examined by using the following formula, which represents the minimum absolute error rate:

When examining the table again and entering the minimum absolute % error rate, we have a more complete view of how this forecast performed:

Using the formula to calculate the minimal absolute error rate, we get a sense of the degree of natural error that can not be "forecasted away" through any means. This is a natural intraday variance that can and should be expected when we establish goals and is discussed later in resilient capacity planning. The formula can easily be leveraged to plot a minimum interval variance rate based on the call volume forecasted for any interval.

This provides simple logic to debunk the fact that there could be a unified "industry standard" behind forecast accuracy – the minimal variance factor alone shows that this isn't practical given that queue groups vary in size and arrival patterns fluctuate.

Schedule Quality Index Goals

Schedule Quality Index (SQI) allows a WFM organization to measure how tight agent schedules fit the forecast arrival pattern. The calculation can be leveraged as a goal, but it is important to this goal is balanced against the employee-first approach to the next generation WFM model.

The SQI formula simply looks at the sum of the gaps between agents scheduled and agents required, and expressing those gaps as a % of how far our staffing is off from the forecasted required FTE by interval. The metric than takes 1 - % of gaps to calculate the metric, where 100% would represent an absolute perfect fit. By understanding the percentage gap, decisions can be made as to designing new tour patterns, conducting shift-bids, or ensuring proper automation techniques are in place to close these gaps. A sample calculation:

Where 91.6% SQI = 100% - (Absolute value (122.3/1454.7)

Like forecast accuracy, no industry standard target for this goal exists. Rather, the metric will vary depending on queue groups size, and as important, schedule policy for types of tours designed and shift-bidding principles. In the traditional WFM model, an organization would attempt to drive SQI higher by conducting shift bids and creating a variety of tour types to simulate schedule fit. In the future workforce management model, it is recommended that the goal be tracked, but that employee retention be dimensioned against tour design, and that automation be leveraged to close SQI gaps.

Forecast Accuracy – Attrition / Retention Goal

The future WFM standard seeks to highlight the importance of predicting how many people will be staffed to service the needs of our customers. Be establishing either an employee attrition (or retention) goal, we highlight the importance of this variable. When a goal is set, and we highlight how good (or bad) we are at achieving that goal, we drive conversation and study of a wider range of people variables. Are we spending adequate time coaching and training employees? Are employees being over-worked? Are employees being regularly recognized? These questions sound like the domain of the contact center management, or perhaps HR, or your learning & development department. But workforce management teams are in a unique position; WFM teams forecast a wide range of variables, critical to ensuring we're set up for achieving financial and customer experience goals.

By taking the same processes leveraged to forecast other variables like call volume, handle time, shrinkage, and occupancy, the future WFM standard adds forecasting attrition/retention percentages and establishing a target goal for the accuracy of predicting this metric.

The method outlined in the future WFM model tracks weekly forecast vs. actual on staffing:

Starting Staff
Hires
Exits
Available Staff

… and compares the forecasted attrition % against the actual attrition percentage to generate a forecast attrition error %. On a weekly basis, this error rate would be calculated, and then annualized, and presented with the annualized forecasted attrition percentage, and actual attrition percentage:

The section seeks further feedback and input from WFM community.

Share spreadsheet for calculation methodology & validation w/ community.

Level 3 — Progressive (Variance Harvesting)

At Level 3 the operation stops fighting variance and starts harvesting it, with rules/automation and human‑AI collaboration. We maintain MTTR for intraday variance and add AAR, VCE, SCR, SLS, EEI.

Mean Time to Respond/Repair for Intraday Variance

Real-time teams generally leverage "response rates" to intraday incidents or action submitted for execution. Mean Time to Repair is a traditional metric leveraged in command center environments which seek to measure how quickly teams fix or respond to a scenario where a service or system is down or degraded. Having a goal for turn-around time with a real-time team is useful to set expectations and prioritizations with the team members responding to issues. It is also effective in communicating with stakeholder customers and demonstrating how well the real-time team is performing against service level agreements in place.

MTTR results are normally dimensioned against service level agreements, which may have levels of severity to set expectations:

Within the WFM process section, we will examine how automations can be leveraged to remove the need for real-time teams to respond/repair types of events. In adopting automation techniques for responding, overall goals established for MTTR may require review.

Automation Acceptance Rate (AAR) Goal

Automation Acceptance Rate measures the critical human element in workforce automation success - the willingness of agents to accept and act upon system-generated prompts. This metric bridges the gap between technological capability and operational reality, quantifying trust, adoption, and the effectiveness of human-AI collaboration in the contact center environment.

Core Definition

Automation Acceptance Rate is calculated as:

$AAR = \frac{Number of accepted prompts}{Total number of prompts offered} \times 100 %$

Where:

Accepted prompts = Automation suggestions acted upon by agents within the action window
Total prompts = All automation suggestions presented to agents
Action window = Time limit for response (typically 30-180 seconds depending on prompt type)

Prompt Categories and Acceptance Dynamics

Prompt Type Classification

Prompt Category	Description	Typical Action Window	Baseline AAR	Target AAR
Training Delivery	Micro-learning modules during low occupancy	60-180 seconds	70-75%	85-90%
Break Adjustment	Shift break timing forward/backward	30-60 seconds	65-70%	85%+
Coaching Session	Scheduled or opportunistic coaching	120 seconds	60-65%	80-85%
Voluntary Time Off	VTO offers during overstaffing	90 seconds	40-50%	60-70%
Overtime Request	VOT offers during understaffing	120 seconds	35-45%	55-65%
Task Assignment	Back-office or project work	60 seconds	75-80%	90%+
Skill Activation	Cross-skill routing enablement	45 seconds	55-60%	75-80%
After-Call Work	Extended ACW for complex issues	30 seconds	80-85%	95%+

Detailed Calculation Methodology

Acceptance Rate Components

The comprehensive AAR calculation includes timing and context factors:

$Weighted AAR = \sum_{i = 1}^{n} ({AAR}_{i} \times {Volume}_{i} \times {Value}_{i}) / \sum_{i = 1}^{n} ({Volume}_{i} \times {Value}_{i})$

Where:

AAR_i = Acceptance rate for prompt type i
Volume_i = Number of prompts of type i
Value_i = Business value weight of prompt type i

Trust Equation Impact on AAR

AAR correlates directly with the trust equation:

$Expected AAR = Base AAR \times (1 + \frac{Transparency + Benefit + Control - Risk}{100})$

AAR Segmentation Analysis

By Agent Tenure

Tenure Band	Typical AAR	Trust Factors	Improvement Strategies
0-3 months	45-55%	• Low system familiarity • High cognitive load • Fear of mistakes	• Extended action windows • Simplified prompts • Supervisor reinforcement
3-12 months	60-70%	• Growing confidence • Some negative experiences • Developing preferences	• Personalization options • Success feedback • Peer champions
1-2 years	70-80%	• System trust established • Routine acceptance • Efficiency focus	• Advanced features • Preference learning • Autonomy settings
2+ years	75-85%	• Full system adoption • Selective acceptance • Mentorship role	• Customization control • Beta features • Influence on design

By Time of Day

Time Period	AAR Range	Influencing Factors	Optimization Tactics
Opening (First 2 hours)	70-80%	Fresh energy, lower volume	Skill development prompts
Mid-Morning Peak	55-65%	High occupancy, stress	Critical prompts only
Lunch Period	75-85%	Rotating coverage	Break coordination focus
Afternoon	60-70%	Fatigue setting in	Energizing activities
Closing	50-60%	End-of-day mindset	VTO, administrative tasks

By Prompt Complexity

${AAR}_{complexity} = Base AAR \times e^{- λ \times Complexity Score}$

Where λ = complexity decay factor (typically 0.15-0.25)

Setting AAR Goals

Progressive Target Framework

Implementation Phase	Duration	Overall AAR Target	Focus Areas
Pilot	Months 1-3	40-50%	• High-value prompts only • Volunteer agents • Extensive feedback loops
Rollout	Months 4-9	55-65%	• Expand prompt types • All agent inclusion • Trust building campaigns
Optimization	Months 10-15	70-75%	• Personalization • Advanced features • Continuous improvement
Maturity	Months 16+	80-85%	• Autonomous adjustments • Agent-configured rules • Predictive preferences

Context-Specific AAR Targets

Operational Context	Minimum AAR	Standard Target	Stretch Goal	Key Success Factors
High-volume, simple tasks	70%	80%	90%	Clear value, quick wins
Complex, multi-skill	60%	70%	80%	Gradual introduction, training
Sales/Revenue focused	65%	75%	85%	Incentive alignment
Technical support	55%	65%	75%	Context preservation
Regulated industries	75%	85%	95%	Compliance emphasis

AAR Value Quantification

Direct Value Calculation

$AAR Value = \sum_{i} ({Prompts}_{i} \times {AAR}_{i} \times {Value per Action}_{i})$

Example for 1000-agent center:

Prompt Type	Daily Volume	AAR	Accepted	Value per Action	Daily Value
Training Modules	500	85%	425	$15	$6,375
Break Optimization	2,000	80%	1,600	$3	$4,800
Coaching Sessions	200	75%	150	$25	$3,750
VTO Offers	100	60%	60	$30	$1,800
Task Routing	800	90%	720	$8	$5,760
Daily Total:					$22,485
Annual Value (250 days):					$5,621,250

Indirect Value Multiplication

AAR creates compound value through:

Service Level Impact: Each 10% AAR increase → 2-3% SL improvement
Attrition Reduction: High AAR (>80%) correlates with 15-20% lower attrition
Occupancy Optimization: Effective AAR enables 5-7% occupancy increase
Training Effectiveness: 85%+ AAR → 3.6x training delivery increase

Trust Building Framework

Trust Component Analysis

Trust Component	Current State Assessment	Improvement Initiatives	Expected AAR Lift
Transparency	• Explain prompt reasoning • Show value created • Share success metrics	• In-prompt explanations • Weekly value reports • Peer success stories	+10-15%
Benefit	• Track personal gains • Highlight time saved • Show skill growth	• Personal dashboards • Gamification elements • Development tracking	+15-20%
Control	• Preference settings • Snooze options • Feedback mechanisms	• Customization UI • Smart timing • One-click feedback	+12-18%
Risk Mitigation	• No adherence penalty • Supervisor support • Error protection	• Safe-to-fail culture • Clear policies • Undo capabilities	+8-12%

AAR Diagnostic Framework

Root Cause Analysis for Low AAR

AAR Range	Likely Causes	Diagnostic Questions	Remediation Strategies
<40%	System distrust	• Recent negative events? • Communication gaps? • Policy conflicts?	• Trust reset campaign • Leadership involvement • Policy alignment
40-60%	Usability issues	• Timing problems? • Interface confusion? • Content relevance?	• UX optimization • Timing adjustments • Content curation
60-75%	Engagement barriers	• Incentive misalignment? • Competing priorities? • Change fatigue?	• Incentive review • Priority clarification • Pace modulation
75-85%	Optimization opportunities	• Personalization gaps? • Edge cases? • Advanced features?	• ML personalization • Exception handling • Feature rollout

Implementation Requirements

Technical Architecture

Prompt Generation Engine
- Rule-based triggers
- ML-driven predictions
- Context awareness algorithms
- Priority queuing system

Delivery Mechanisms
- Desktop notifications
- Mobile app integration
- Screen pop-ups
- Audio/visual alerts

Response Tracking
- Acceptance logging
- Response time capture
- Reason code collection
- Outcome measurement

Analytics Platform
- Real-time AAR monitoring
- Segmentation analysis
- Predictive modeling
- A/B testing framework

Organizational Requirements

Policies: No-penalty period, opt-in/opt-out rights, feedback loops
Communication: Launch campaign, success stories, continuous updates
Training: System orientation, value demonstration, preference setting
Support: Dedicated help desk, peer champions, supervisor coaching

AAR Improvement Roadmap

Month	Focus	Key Actions	Target AAR	Success Metrics
1-2	Foundation	• Agent communication • System setup • Baseline measurement	35-45%	Participation rate >80%
3-4	Trust Building	• Quick wins • Feedback incorporation • Success celebration	50-60%	NPS >40
5-6	Expansion	• Prompt variety • Personalization • Advanced features	65-70%	Value delivery >$2M
7-9	Optimization	• ML enhancement • Predictive timing • Preference learning	75-80%	Attrition reduction 10%
10-12	Maturity	• Autonomous operation • Agent configuration • Continuous evolution	80-85%	ROI >300%

AAR Monitoring Dashboard

Metric	Current Hour	Today	Week	Month	Trend
Overall AAR	82.3%	79.8%	78.5%	77.2%	↑
Training AAR	88.5%	86.2%	85.1%	84.3%	✓
Break AAR	79.1%	78.4%	77.9%	76.8%	→
VTO AAR	61.2%	58.7%	57.3%	55.9%	↓
New Agent AAR (<90 days)	68.4%	65.2%	63.8%	62.1%	→
Trust Score	74/100	73/100	72/100	71/100	↑

Relationship to Other Metrics

AAR acts as a leading indicator and enabler for multiple goals:

VCE Achievement: AAR × Variance Windows = Harvested Activities
OVF Realization: High AAR enables flexible cost strategies
Service Level: Automated adjustments require acceptance to impact SL
Employee Satisfaction: AAR >80% correlates with +15 point eNPS
Training Completion: AAR directly drives completion rates
Attrition Prevention: Trust (via AAR) reduces turnover by 20-30%

Common AAR Pitfalls and Prevention

Pitfall	Impact	Prevention Strategy
Forcing acceptance through penalties	-40% AAR, trust collapse	Positive reinforcement only
Too many prompts too fast	-25% AAR, alert fatigue	Graduated rollout, smart throttling
Poor timing algorithms	-30% AAR, disruption	ML-based timing optimization
Lack of value communication	-20% AAR, low engagement	Continuous value storytelling
Ignoring agent feedback	-35% AAR, resistance	Rapid iteration cycles

Summary

Automation Acceptance Rate serves as the critical bridge between workforce management technology and human adoption. By establishing AAR as a formal goal, organizations:

Build trust in human-AI collaboration systems
Enable variance harvesting through willing participation
Create sustainable automation adoption patterns
Measure and improve the human side of digital transformation
Generate millions in value through accepted automations

AAR represents the human trust factor that determines whether theoretical automation capabilities become operational reality, making it essential for successful workforce transformation in the Collaborative Intelligence Era. Without strong AAR, even the most sophisticated automation systems fail to deliver value, as success ultimately depends on human acceptance and participation.

Variance Capture Efficiency (VCE) Goal

Variance Capture Efficiency represents a transformative goal metric that quantifies how effectively an organization converts operational variance from a liability into productive value. This metric operationalizes the variance concepts established in Probability & Variance Goals by measuring the actual harvesting of available capacity fluctuations.

Core Definition

Variance Capture Efficiency is calculated as:

$VCE = \frac{\sum Minutes of harvested activities}{\sum Minutes of available variance} \times 100 %$

Where:

Harvested activities = Productive work completed during variance windows (training, coaching, quality reviews, process improvements)
Available variance = Positive staffing variance when actual staff exceeds required staff

Detailed Component Breakdown

Available Variance Calculation

Available variance per interval is determined by:

${Available Variance}_{i} = \max (0, {Staffed}_{i} - {Required}_{i}) \times Interval Minutes$

Adjusted for occupancy bands: ${Adjusted Variance}_{i} = \max (0, {Staffed}_{i} - {Required}_{i}) \times Interval Minutes \times Occupancy Factor$

Where Occupancy Factor = (Target Occupancy - Current Occupancy) / Target Occupancy

Harvested Activities Categories

Activity Type	Priority	Typical Duration	Value Multiplier
Compliance Training	1	15-30 min	1.5x
Skills Development	2	20-45 min	1.3x
Quality Coaching	3	10-20 min	1.2x
Process Documentation	4	15-60 min	1.1x
Peer Mentoring	5	10-30 min	1.0x
Administrative Tasks	6	5-15 min	0.8x

Calculation Methodology

Step-by-Step VCE Calculation

Identify Variance Windows: Calculate staffed vs required for each interval
Quantify Available Minutes: Sum positive variance across time period
Track Harvested Activities: Log all productive work delivered during variance
Apply Value Weighting: Weight activities by priority/value
Calculate Efficiency: Divide harvested by available

Sample Daily Calculation

Interval	Staffed	Required	Variance	Available Minutes	Harvested	Activity Type
08:00-08:30	52	48	+4	120	90	Training modules
09:00-09:30	55	54	+1	30	20	Quality review
10:00-10:30	58	58	0	0	0	-
11:00-11:30	54	51	+3	90	75	Coaching sessions
13:00-13:30	50	45	+5	150	120	Skills training
14:00-14:30	48	47	+1	30	15	Documentation
Totals:				420	320
Daily VCE:						76.2%

VCE Maturity Levels

Organizations progress through distinct VCE maturity stages:

Maturity Level	VCE Range	Characteristics	Enabling Technologies
Reactive	0-15%	• Manual variance identification • Ad-hoc activity assignment • No systematic tracking	Spreadsheets, manual logs
Managed	15-30%	• Daily variance review • Pre-planned activity lists • Basic tracking metrics	WFM software, basic reporting
Progressive	30-45%	• Real-time variance monitoring • Automated activity queuing • Prioritized delivery	Real-time adherence, LMS integration
Advanced	45-60%	• Predictive variance modeling • Dynamic activity routing • Personalized development paths	AI-powered automation, predictive analytics
Optimized	60%+	• Autonomous variance harvesting • Continuous micro-learning • Closed-loop optimization	ML-driven orchestration, adaptive systems

Setting VCE Goals

VCE targets should reflect organizational maturity and operational characteristics:

Baseline Assessment Factors

Current State Analysis
- Historical unutilized time percentage
- Existing training completion rates
- Coaching delivery frequency
- Administrative task backlog

Operational Characteristics
- Average interval variance volatility
- Scheduling flexibility policies
- Multi-skill coverage depth
- Real-time management capabilities

Recommended VCE Targets by Context

Operational Context	Year 1 Target	Year 2 Target	Year 3 Target	Stretch Goal
Single-skill, stable demand	20-25%	30-35%	40-45%	50%+
Multi-skill, moderate variance	25-30%	35-40%	45-50%	55%+
Omnichannel, high variance	30-35%	40-45%	50-55%	60%+
Blended work, dynamic routing	35-40%	45-50%	55-60%	65%+

VCE Value Quantification

Financial Impact Formula

$VCE Value = Harvested Minutes \times Hourly Rate \times Activity ROI Factor$

Where Activity ROI Factors are:

Training delivery: 3.6x (productivity gains + reduced rework)
Coaching sessions: 2.8x (quality improvements + retention)
Process improvement: 2.2x (efficiency gains)
Administrative completion: 1.5x (compliance + reduced backlog)

Example Annual Value Calculation

For a 1000-agent operation achieving 45% VCE:

Component	Calculation	Annual Value
Available variance	1000 agents × 2.5 hours/day × 250 days	625,000 hours
Harvested @ 45% VCE	625,000 × 0.45	281,250 hours
Weighted activity value	281,250 × $25/hour × 2.5 ROI	$17,578,125
Less: Delivery costs	281,250 × $25/hour × 0.3	$(2,109,375)
Net VCE Value		$15,468,750

Measurement Framework

Key Performance Indicators

KPI	Formula	Target	Frequency
Overall VCE	Harvested / Available × 100%	Per goals	Daily
Activity Mix Quality	High-value activities / Total harvested	>60%	Weekly
Variance Prediction Accuracy	Predicted variance / Actual variance	85%+	Weekly
Harvest Execution Rate	Executed activities / Queued activities	90%+	Daily
Agent Participation Rate	Participating agents / Available agents	95%+	Daily

Diagnostic Metrics

Variance Loss Analysis: Reasons for unharvested variance
Activity Completion Rates: % of started activities completed
Time-to-Harvest: Lag between variance identification and harvest
Agent Preference Match: Harvested activities matching development plans

Integration with Automation

VCE achievement directly correlates with automation maturity:

$Achievable VCE = Base VCE \times (1 + Automation Factor)$

Where Automation Factors are:

Manual processes only: 1.0x
Basic WFM tools: 1.3x
Real-time adherence: 1.6x
Dynamic automation: 2.0x
AI orchestration: 2.5x

Relationship to Other Goals

VCE creates synergies with established metrics:

Schedule Quality Index: Higher SQI creates more predictable variance windows
Forecast Accuracy: Better forecasts enable variance prediction
Attrition Reduction: Development opportunities from VCE improve retention
Option Value of Flexibility: VCE is the mechanism that captures OVF
Service Level Stability: Variance harvesting smooths interval performance

Implementation Requirements

Technical Infrastructure

Variance Detection
- Real-time staffing vs. required calculation
- Predictive variance modeling
- Multi-horizon visibility (15-min to daily)

Activity Management
- Dynamic activity queue/backlog
- Personalized learning paths
- Priority-based routing algorithms

Delivery Mechanisms
- Push notifications to agents
- Automated session launching
- Progress tracking and reporting

Measurement Systems
- Automated harvest tracking
- Value attribution models
- ROI calculation engines

Organizational Enablers

Policies: Flexible adherence, micro-training approval, dynamic scheduling
Culture: Continuous learning mindset, variance as opportunity
Leadership: Supervisor coaching on variance harvesting
Technology: LMS integration, real-time WFM, automation platform

VCE Improvement Roadmap

Quarter	Focus Area	Key Initiatives	Expected VCE Lift
Q1	Foundation	• Variance measurement • Activity inventory • Baseline establishment	+5-10%
Q2	Process	• Harvest procedures • Queue management • Basic automation	+8-12%
Q3	Technology	• Real-time integration • Automated routing • Analytics platform	+10-15%
Q4	Optimization	• AI enhancement • Predictive models • Closed-loop learning	+12-18%

Example VCE Dashboard

Metric	Today	MTD	Target	Trend
VCE %	47.3%	45.8%	45.0%	↑
Variance Hours	1,247	28,451	30,000	→
Harvested Hours	590	13,031	13,500	↑
Training Delivered	342	7,218	7,000	✓
Coaching Sessions	127	2,847	3,000	→
Participation Rate	94%	92%	95%	→

Common VCE Barriers and Solutions

Barrier	Impact	Solution
Rigid adherence policies	-20% VCE	Implement dynamic adherence with protection windows
Lack of ready content	-15% VCE	Build modular micro-learning library
Manual identification	-25% VCE	Deploy real-time variance detection
No prioritization	-10% VCE	Create value-weighted activity queue
Supervisor resistance	-30% VCE	Education on ROI + automated execution

Summary

Variance Capture Efficiency transforms the traditional view of overstaffing from waste to opportunity. By establishing VCE as a formal goal, organizations:

Convert 40-60% of idle time into productive development
Generate millions in value from existing resources
Improve employee engagement through continuous learning
Build resilience through enhanced workforce capabilities
Create measurable ROI from workforce flexibility

VCE represents the operational mechanism through which theoretical flexibility becomes practical value, making it essential for achieving the full benefits of adaptive workforce management in the Collaborative Intelligence Era.

Employee Experience Index (EEI) Goal

The Employee Experience Index represents a paradigm shift from annual employee surveys to dynamic wellbeing measurement that reads as continuously as Customer Experience metrics. This composite metric quantifies the lived experience of agents through observable behaviors and system interactions, enabling real-time intervention and sustainable workforce transformation in the Collaborative Intelligence Era.

Core Definition

Employee Experience Index is calculated as:

$EEI = \sum_{j = 1}^{5} w_{j} \cdot {Component}_{j}$

Where:

w_j = Weight for component j (locally calibrated, summing to 1.0)
Component_j = Normalized score (0-100) for each of five experience dimensions

The five core components measure:

Schedule Control - Autonomy over work timing and flexibility
Development Cadence - Frequency and quality of growth opportunities
Stress Signals - Inverse indicators of burnout and pressure
Growth Velocity - Rate of capability expansion
Engagement Markers - Voluntary participation and discretionary effort

Detailed Component Breakdown

1. Schedule Control (Typical weight: 0.25)

Measures perceived and actual autonomy over work schedule:

Sub-metric	Measurement	Weight	Target Range
Schedule Lead Time	Days advance notice for shifts	30%	14-21 days
Change Flexibility	% shift change requests approved	25%	80-95%
Preference Match	% shifts matching stated preferences	25%	70-85%
VTO/Swap Access	Availability of voluntary options	20%	Daily offering

Calculation: $Schedule Control = \frac{Lead Time Score + Flexibility Score + Preference Score + Options Score}{4}$

2. Development Cadence (Typical weight: 0.20)

Tracks delivery of growth opportunities:

Element	Frequency Target	Points	Max Score
Micro-learning modules	Daily	2 pts/module	40
Coaching touchpoints	Weekly	10 pts/session	40
Skills certification	Monthly	15 pts/cert	15
Career conversations	Quarterly	5 pts/conversation	5

Formula: $Development Cadence = \min (100, \sum Activity Points \times Completion Rate)$

3. Stress Signals (Typical weight: 0.20)

Inverse metric capturing burnout indicators: $Stress Signals = 100 - Stress Index$

Where Stress Index includes:

Adherence pressure: Exceptions, warnings, corrections (40%)
Escalation exposure: Difficult customer interactions (25%)
Schedule volatility: Last-minute changes, mandatory OT (20%)
System friction: Tool failures, process blocks (15%)

4. Growth Velocity (Typical weight: 0.20)

Measures capability expansion rate: $Growth Velocity = \frac{Δ Skills + Δ Performance + Δ Responsibility}{T i m e} \times 100$

Components:

Skills acquired: New queues, channels, specializations
Performance gains: AHT improvement, quality scores, FCR lift
Responsibility growth: Mentoring, special projects, tier progression

5. Engagement Markers (Typical weight: 0.15)

Voluntary participation indicators:

Behavior	Measurement	Value Weight
Automation acceptance	AAR above baseline	25%
Peer assistance	Help tickets created/resolved	20%
Idea submission	Suggestions implemented	20%
Community participation	Forums, events, groups	20%
Recognition given	Kudos, nominations	15%

Implementation Maturity Framework

EEI Evolution by Level

Maturity Level	EEI Implementation	Update Frequency	Use Cases
Level 1-2	Annual survey proxy	Quarterly	Baseline only
Level 3	5-component composite	Weekly	Trend analysis, alerts
Level 4	Predictive EEI	Daily	Proactive intervention
Level 5	Individual EEI	Real-time	Personalized experience

Progressive Implementation Path

Quarter 1: Foundation

Establish data sources for each component
Define local weightings through stakeholder input
Create baseline measurements
Expected EEI: 45-55

Quarter 2: Automation

Automate data collection
Build dashboard visualizations
Set alert thresholds
Expected EEI: 50-60

Quarter 3: Action

Link EEI drops to intervention protocols
Create manager playbooks
Implement improvement pilots
Expected EEI: 55-65

Quarter 4: Optimization

Machine learning for prediction
Personalized interventions
Closed-loop improvement
Expected EEI: 65-75

Setting EEI Goals

Target Setting Framework

Industry Context	Baseline EEI	Year 1 Target	Year 2 Target	Best-in-Class
High-complexity support	40-45	55-60	65-70	75+
Transactional service	45-50	60-65	70-75	80+
Sales/Revenue	50-55	65-70	75-80	85+
Blended/Omnichannel	45-50	60-65	70-75	80+

Component-Specific Targets

Rather than single EEI target, set component goals:

Schedule Control: Minimum 65, target 75+
Development Cadence: Minimum 60, target 80+
Stress Signals: Maximum 30 stress index (70+ score)
Growth Velocity: Minimum 15% annual capability growth
Engagement: Minimum 50% voluntary participation

Simplified Alternative: Employee Wellbeing Index (EWI)

For organizations with limited data availability, use the simplified EWI:

$EWI = 0.4 \cdot SchedStability + 0.3 \cdot GrowthDelivered + 0.3 \cdot (1 - BurnoutRisk)$

Where:

SchedStability = Consistency of schedules week-to-week (0-100)
GrowthDelivered = Actual development hours vs promised (0-100)
BurnoutRisk = Composite of overtime, adherence pressure, escalation exposure (0-100)

EWI provides 80% of EEI insight with 40% of the data requirements.

Measurement Framework

Real-Time Monitoring Dashboard

Metric	Current	7-Day Avg	30-Day Avg	Target	Alert
Overall EEI	67.3	65.8	64.2	70.0	Watch
Schedule Control	72.1	71.5	70.8	75.0	Stable
Development Cadence	68.4	66.2	63.7	80.0	Action
Stress Signals	61.2	59.8	58.3	70.0	Action
Growth Velocity	71.5	70.1	69.4	65.0	Good
Engagement	64.8	63.2	62.1	65.0	Watch

Segmentation Analysis

Critical to segment EEI by:

Tenure: New (<90 days), Developing (3-12 months), Experienced (1-2 years), Veteran (2+ years)
Shift: Day, Evening, Night, Weekend
Channel: Voice, Chat, Email, Blended
Performance Tier: Top, Middle, Bottom quartile
Location: Site, Remote, Hybrid

Variance >10 points between segments indicates systemic inequity requiring intervention.

Relationship to Business Outcomes

EEI Impact Correlations

EEI Range	Attrition Rate	AHT Index	Quality Score	NPS Impact
<50	45-60%	110-120	75-80	-10 to -5
50-60	30-45%	100-110	80-85	-5 to 0
60-70	20-30%	95-100	85-90	0 to +5
70-80	10-20%	90-95	90-95	+5 to +10
80+	<10%	85-90	95+	+10 to +15

Financial Value of EEI Improvement

Each 10-point EEI increase typically delivers:

**15-20% attrition reduction** → $1-2M savings per 1000 agents
**5-7% productivity gain** → $2-3M capacity value
**8-10 NPS point lift** → $3-5M CLV impact
**25% reduction in absenteeism** → $500K-1M savings

Total value: $6.5-11M per 10-point improvement for 1000-agent operation

Action Triggers and Interventions

Component-Based Response Matrix

Component Drop	Threshold	Immediate Action	Sustained Response
Schedule Control	-10 pts/week	Review recent changes	Policy adjustment, preference reset
Development	-15 pts/month	Check delivery failures	Content refresh, supervisor training
Stress Signals	+20 stress/week	Reduce occupancy target	Process simplification, support resources
Growth Velocity	-5 pts/quarter	Audit skill progression	Career path review, opportunity creation
Engagement	-10 pts/month	Focus groups	Recognition program, community building

EEI Alert Protocols

Yellow Alert (EEI 55-60): Weekly monitoring, targeted interventions
Orange Alert (EEI 50-55): Daily monitoring, escalated support, action plans
Red Alert (EEI <50): Executive attention, immediate relief measures, recovery program

Integration with Other Metrics

EEI serves as the human-side complement to operational metrics:

With VCE: High EEI enables variance acceptance → higher capture rates
With AAR: Trust (component of EEI) directly drives automation acceptance
With SCR: Development cadence improves as supervisors shift to coaching
With Attrition: EEI is the leading indicator (3-6 month advance warning)
With Service Level: Sustainable performance requires EEI >60
With Quality/CSAT: Agent wellbeing translates to customer experience

Implementation Requirements

Technical Infrastructure

Data Integration Layer
- HRIS for schedule and development data
- WFM for adherence and occupancy metrics
- Quality systems for performance indicators
- Collaboration platforms for engagement signals

Calculation Engine
- Real-time component scoring
- Weight calibration by segment
- Trend analysis and predictions
- Alert generation system

Visualization Platform
- Individual agent dashboards
- Team/supervisor views
- Executive scorecards
- Mobile accessibility

Action Orchestration
- Intervention recommendation engine
- Workflow automation for responses
- Effectiveness tracking
- Closed-loop optimization

Organizational Requirements

Governance: EEI steering committee with HR, Operations, IT representation
Policy: Clear guidelines on data use, privacy, and agent rights
Training: Manager education on interpretation and action
Communication: Transparent methodology and improvement focus
Culture: Shift from surveillance to support mindset

Common Pitfalls and Mitigation

Pitfall	Impact	Prevention Strategy
Over-weighting single component	Skewed scores, gaming	Balanced weights, regular calibration
Annual-only measurement	Missed deterioration	Weekly minimum frequency
No action on low scores	Cynicism, trust erosion	Mandatory intervention protocols
One-size-fits-all targets	Inequitable treatment	Segmented goals by context
Privacy concerns	Resistance, legal risk	Clear consent, aggregate reporting
Manager punishment for scores	Hidden problems	Support-oriented accountability

Advanced Applications

Predictive EEI Modeling

Use machine learning to predict EEI changes: ${EEI}_{t + 30} = f ({Schedule}_{t}, {Workload}_{t}, {Training}_{t}, {Recognition}_{t}, History)$

Enables proactive intervention before degradation occurs.

Personalized Experience Optimization

Individual preference learning creates custom weight vectors: ${EEI}_{i n d i v i d u a l} = \sum_{j = 1}^{5} w_{j, i} \cdot {Component}_{j}$

Where w_j,i reflects individual i's revealed preferences through behavior and feedback.

Summary

The Employee Experience Index transforms workforce management from efficiency-focused to human-centered operations. By establishing EEI as a formal goal, organizations:

Create continuous wellbeing measurement versus annual snapshots
Enable proactive intervention before attrition or burnout
Quantify the human impact of operational decisions
Build sustainable performance through employee thriving
Generate millions in value through retention and engagement

EEI represents the essential counterbalance to automation metrics, ensuring that workforce transformation enhances rather than diminishes the human experience. Organizations achieving EEI >70 consistently demonstrate superior customer outcomes, financial performance, and competitive advantage in attracting and retaining talent.

Supervisor Coaching Ratio (SCR) Goal

The Supervisor Coaching Ratio represents the fundamental transformation of supervisory work from administrative policing to developmental coaching in the Collaborative Intelligence Era. This metric quantifies the reallocation of supervisor time made possible by automation, measuring the shift from exception handling and schedule management to capability building and performance development. SCR serves as the critical indicator of whether automation truly enhances human work or merely speeds up administrative tasks.

Core Definition

Supervisor Coaching Ratio is calculated as:

$SCR = \frac{Time on coaching/development}{Total supervisor time} \times 100$

Where:

Coaching/Development Time = Direct coaching, skills development, career conversations, performance feedback, team development activities
Total Supervisor Time = All productive supervisor hours excluding breaks and meetings

The metric captures the profound shift enabled by Level 3 automation: from 30% coaching / 70% administration to 60%+ coaching / 40% administration.

Component Breakdown

Coaching & Development Activities (Numerator)

Activity Category	Examples	Time Attribution	Value Weight
Direct Coaching	1-on-1 performance conversations, call reviews, skill building	100%	1.5x
Team Development	Group training, skills workshops, best practice sharing	100%	1.3x
Career Development	Growth planning, advancement discussions, mentoring	100%	1.4x
Quality Calibration	Joint call reviews, evaluation alignment, feedback delivery	75%	1.2x
Recognition Activities	Performance celebrations, peer nominations, success stories	100%	1.1x
Knowledge Sharing	Creating job aids, documenting processes, peer teaching	50%	1.0x

Administrative Activities (Denominator Component)

Activity Category	Traditional Time %	Level 3 Target %	Automation Impact
Schedule Exception Handling	25-30%	<5%	85% reduction via auto-adjustments
Adherence Management	15-20%	<3%	90% reduction via dynamic adherence
Time-off Approvals	10-12%	<2%	80% reduction via rule-based approval
Escalation Triage	8-10%	5-7%	30% reduction via intelligent routing
Report Generation	7-10%	<2%	80% reduction via automated dashboards
Workforce Coordination	5-8%	3-5%	40% reduction via automation

Maturity Progression

SCR Evolution by Level

Maturity Level	Typical SCR	Time Distribution	Key Characteristics
Level 1-2: Manual/Foundational	20-30%	70-80% admin, 20-30% coaching	• Exception-driven supervision • Reactive firefighting • Schedule policing focus
Level 3: Progressive	60-70%	30-40% admin, 60-70% coaching	• Automation handles exceptions • Proactive development • Performance partnership
Level 4: Advanced	70-80%	20-30% admin, 70-80% coaching	• Predictive interventions • Capability building focus • Strategic talent development
Level 5: Pioneering	80%+	<20% admin, 80%+ coaching	• Autonomous administration • Pure development role • Innovation facilitation

The Level 3 Transformation

From Schedule Cop to Performance Coach:

Before (Level 2)	After (Level 3)	Automation Enabler
Approving break exceptions	Coaching through difficult calls	Break protection rules
Monitoring adherence	Building new capabilities	Dynamic adherence
Processing time-off requests	Conducting career planning	Automated approval workflows
Generating compliance reports	Creating development paths	Real-time dashboards
Chasing attendance issues	Preventing burnout	Wellbeing alerts
Coordinating schedule swaps	Facilitating peer learning	Self-service systems

Setting SCR Goals

Context-Specific Targets

Operational Context	Current State	Year 1 Target	Year 2 Target	Best Practice
High-volume transactional	15-25%	45-55%	65-75%	80%+
Complex technical support	25-35%	50-60%	70-75%	80%+
Sales/Revenue focused	30-40%	55-65%	70-80%	85%+
Regulated/Compliance heavy	20-30%	40-50%	60-70%	75%+
Omnichannel operations	25-30%	50-60%	70-75%	80%+

Key Principle: Direction and magnitude matter more than universal targets. A shift from 30% to 60% SCR represents transformational change regardless of industry.

Progressive Implementation Path

Quarter 1: Baseline & Quick Wins

Establish measurement through calendar tagging
Implement first automation rules (break protection)
Remove top 3 administrative time wasters
Expected SCR: +10-15% improvement

Quarter 2: Systematic Automation

Deploy adherence automation
Automate standard approvals
Introduce coaching appointment scheduling
Expected SCR: +15-20% additional improvement

Quarter 3: Role Redesign

Formalize "no-exceptions" policies
Implement coaching playbooks
Create development tracking systems
Expected SCR: +10-15% additional improvement

Quarter 4: Optimization

Personalized coaching algorithms
Predictive intervention models
Peer coaching programs
Expected SCR: 60-70% total achievement

Measurement Framework

Data Collection Methods

Method	Accuracy	Implementation Effort	Recommended For
Calendar Tagging	High (90%+)	Medium	Primary method - all organizations
Workflow Logs	Very High (95%+)	High	Mature WFM systems
ROC Tickets	Medium (70-80%)	Low	Quick start measurement
Time Studies	High (85-90%)	High	Validation and calibration
Self-Reporting	Low (60-70%)	Low	Supplementary only

Instrumentation Requirements

Calendar Integration
- Activity categorization taxonomy
- Automated tagging rules
- Mobile accessibility for floor coaching
- Integration with WFM/HRIS

Workflow Tracking
- Coaching session logging
- Quality calibration tracking
- Development conversation records
- Exception handling logs

Analytics Platform
- Real-time SCR calculation
- Trend analysis by supervisor
- Correlation with team performance
- ROI demonstration tools

Value Quantification

Business Impact of SCR Improvement

For a 1,000-agent operation with 100 supervisors (10:1 ratio):

SCR Improvement	Coaching Hours Gained	Annual Value	Key Benefits
30% → 45%	31,200 hours	$1.56M	• 15% attrition reduction • 5% quality improvement
45% → 60%	31,200 hours	$1.87M	• 20% development acceleration • 8% productivity gain
60% → 75%	31,200 hours	$2.18M	• 25% promotion readiness • 12% engagement lift
Total 30% → 75%	93,600 hours	$5.61M	• Complete role transformation

Calculation basis: 100 supervisors × 2,080 hours/year × 15% improvement = 31,200 hours

Multiplier Effects

Each 10% SCR improvement typically generates:

**3-5% reduction in agent attrition** through better support
**2-3% improvement in quality scores** through consistent coaching
**5-7% increase in employee engagement** through development focus
**4-6% acceleration in speed to proficiency** for new agents

Relationship to Other Metrics

SCR as Enabler and Outcome

Related Metric	Relationship	Correlation Strength
AAR (Automation Acceptance)	Higher AAR → More time for coaching	r = 0.75
VCE (Variance Capture)	Automated admin → Higher SCR	r = 0.82
EEI (Employee Experience)	More coaching → Better experience	r = 0.78
Attrition Rate	Higher SCR → Lower attrition	r = -0.71
Quality Scores	More coaching → Higher quality	r = 0.69
Adherence Exceptions	Fewer exceptions → Higher SCR	r = -0.85

Implementation Playbook

Phase 1: Remove Administrative Burden

Weeks 1-4: Foundation

Implement break/lunch auto-adjustment rules
Deploy automated time-off approvals for standard requests
Create self-service schedule swap system
Expected Impact: +15-20% SCR

Weeks 5-8: Exception Elimination

Introduce "no-exceptions" policy for protected activities
Automate adherence tracking and reporting
Implement intelligent escalation routing
Expected Impact: +10-15% SCR

Phase 2: Enable Quality Coaching

Weeks 9-12: Structure & Support

Deploy coaching appointment scheduling
Create coaching playbook library
Implement session tracking tools
Build feedback capture systems
Expected Impact: +10-15% SCR

Weeks 13-16: Optimization

Personalize coaching recommendations
Integrate quality scores with coaching priorities
Launch peer coaching programs
Measure coaching effectiveness
Expected Impact: +5-10% SCR

Common Barriers and Solutions

Barrier	Impact on SCR	Solution Approach
Supervisor resistance	-20-30%	• Show time savings first • Provide coaching skills training • Celebrate early adopters
Lack of coaching skills	-15-20%	• Coaching certification program • Peer observation • External training investment
Persistent manual processes	-25-35%	• Automation audit • Process simplification • Technology investment
Cultural inertia	-10-15%	• Leadership modeling • Success stories • Gradual transition
Measurement gaps	-5-10%	• Calendar discipline • Activity categorization • Regular audits

Supervisor Enablement Framework

From Cop to Coach Transformation

Mindset Shift Requirements:**

Old Mindset (Cop)	New Mindset (Coach)	Enabling Actions
"Enforcement focus"	"Development focus"	Remove enforcement burden via automation
"Exception management"	"Capability building"	Eliminate exceptions through rules
"Compliance monitoring"	"Performance partnership"	Automate compliance tracking
"Schedule police"	"Career advocate"	Deploy schedule self-service
"Problem solver"	"Potential developer"	Provide coaching frameworks

Critical Success Factors

Leadership Commitment: Executives must model and reward coaching behavior
Tool Investment: Automation must genuinely remove administrative burden
Skill Development: Supervisors need coaching capability training
Cultural Alignment: Organization must value development over control
Measurement Discipline: Consistent tracking and visibility of SCR

Advanced Applications

Predictive SCR Optimization

Use machine learning to predict optimal coaching allocation: ${Coaching Priority}_{a g e n t} = f (Performance Gap, Potential, Risk Factors, Recent Coaching)$

This ensures supervisor time focuses on highest-impact coaching opportunities.

Personalized Coaching Effectiveness

Track not just time spent, but impact achieved: $Coaching ROI = \frac{Δ Performance \times Value}{Coaching Hours Invested}$

Enables supervisors to refine approaches based on what works for each individual.

ROC Integration

SCR visibility in the Real-time Operations Center:

**Real-time Display**: Current coaching sessions active
**Daily Tracking**: Cumulative SCR by supervisor
**Alert System**: When SCR drops below target
**Opportunity Flags**: When variance enables coaching time
**Session Protection**: Blocks that prevent coaching interruption

Summary

The Supervisor Coaching Ratio represents the most visible transformation in the Collaborative Intelligence Era—the evolution from administrative oversight to human development. By establishing SCR as a formal goal, organizations:

Quantify the value shift from policing to coaching
Justify automation investments through time reallocation
Transform supervisor role attractiveness and retention
Build capability development into operational rhythm
Create sustainable performance through human growth

The shift from 30% to 60%+ coaching time isn't just about efficiency—it fundamentally changes the supervisor-agent relationship from compliance-based to development-based, creating a multiplier effect on engagement, quality, and retention. SCR serves as both the proof point that automation works and the mechanism through which organizations build adaptive capability for continuous transformation.

Service Level Stability (SLS)

Definition (authoritative structure): Use standard deviation (or coefficient of variation) of interval service levels as the stability measure; track daily/weekly SLS to quantify smoothness of delivery. Example KPI: SLS (StDev) < 10%.

Placeholders (Level 3 Adds)

TTS — Placeholder metric (definition TBD per master list sequencing).
Dynamic Adherence — Track rate of automated adherence adjustments accepted/applied (ties to AAR).

Level 4 — Advanced (Probabilistic Planning)

Level 4 replaces single‑point plans with bands and risk‑aware economics; we formalize variance ranges, risk ratings, and the value of flexibility.

Probability & Variance Goals

In Forecast Accuracy Goals: Call Volume - we speak to the importance of maintaining forecast accuracy goals against metrics such as volume. By reflecting on how accurate our forecasts were, we drive critical conversations which uncover and address the drivers behind why a forecast was off. Yet, single point capacity plan inputs and outputs ignore the important nature our data – capacity plans aggregate variables. Variables change within the context of our capacity plans, and describing how these variables have a distribution of values, is key to enabling resilient capacity planning.

The future WFM standard seeks to directly incorporate variance ranges into the planning cycle and establish the initial goal of conducting simulations to demonstrate the importance variance plays in evaluating risks associated with the capacity plans. These goals can then be expanded to establish target goals for the distribution ranges themselves.

The legacy approach in capacity planning took input variables and sought to assign single-point outcomes. Leveraging a simple base FTE required calculation (not including turnover factors and speed to proficiency) – we calculate:

FTE Required = Annual Calls X AHT /3600 / Work Hours / Occupancy / (1-Shrink):

This assumes no variance to our plan, and that we will need precisely 165 FTE to service the workload. Of course, there is little to no chance that our inputs will line up precisely; we accept that these are continuous variables that will take on a range of values. Yet, the legacy WFM capacity planning approach generally does not formalize a process to incorporate those ranges into our planning cycles.

The future WFM standard seeks to establish the goal of assigning ranges into our planning process by describing the distribution of these variables and conducting simulations (see process section X.X) to determine the probabilistic distribution of outcomes (FTE required, budget). The standard further seeks to expose how the inputs influence these outcome ranges.

The simple FTE required model described above is enhanced to acknowledge that each of these inputs (except for work hours) has a range of outcomes:

And with that range of outcomes, you have a range of FTEs potentially required. Further, this range can be described by the distribution type assigned, such as AHT with a target of 600 seconds. With the triangular distribution and the PERT distribution, we see probabilities take shape based on the nature of their distribution density:

Establishing the goal of assigning ranges to variables in capacity planning facilitates the next section, establishing risk ratings.

Risk Ratings

The section seeks further feedback and input from WFM community.

In a risk assessment, variance refers to the degree of uncertainty or unpredictability associated with a particular risk. The higher the variance, the greater the uncertainty and the more difficult it is to predict the likelihood and impact of a risk.

In general, higher variance implies higher risk, as there is a greater range of potential outcomes and a greater uncertainty about which outcome will occur. For example, if a risk has a high variance, it may be difficult to predict how likely it is to occur or how severe the consequences might be. This can make it difficult to effectively plan for and manage the risk.

On the other hand, a risk with low variance is more predictable and easier to plan for. For example, if a risk has a low variance, it may be more likely to occur, and the consequences may be more predictable and easier to mitigate.

In a risk assessment, it is important to consider the variance associated with a particular risk in order to accurately assess and manage the risk. This can help to identify strategies for mitigating or eliminating the risk, as well as to establish contingency plans in case the risk does materialize.

By introducing variance planning and variance goals associated with establishing variance ranges (rather than single-point outcomes), the future workforce operating model seeks to establish a qualitative risk rating system, one which leverages a consistent quantitative framework. This system would leverage structured ranges that focus on:

Service Level Risk: The relationship between staffing levels set in the budget, and probabilities of achieving service level based on the variance distributions,
Financial Risk: The relationship between the staffing levels set in the budget, and the corresponding budget allocated to service the capacity model,
Employee Risk: The relationship between occupancy levels set, productive shrink investment, attrition rates, and the probability to deliver against the each (future development)
Overall Risk: A combination of service level risk, financial risk, and employee risk to generate an overall rating.

Service Level Risk Rating

The service level risk rating assumes variance planning is in place, and that the WFM team has presented a representative distribution of values associated each variable feeding the capacity model. Those inputs can then generate a range of staffing requirements with a plot representing what % of outcomes would be covered, based on the staffing levels established.

When the range of inputs is run through a Monte Carlo simulation, an output histogram / Pareto can be examined. By segmenting the % of scenarios covered across the Pareto range, one can then translate the final FTE set in the budget against the % of outcomes that staffing level covers. Ranges could be communicated as:

FTE >= 90% receives an A Rating,
FTE >=80% & <90% receives a B Rating
FTE >=70% & <80% receives a C Rating
FTE >=60% & <70% receives a D Rating

... and so on, aligning to a traditional qualitative rating system.

Financial Risk Rating

Relative to how a financial department works with the data presented by workforce management, every organization treats capacity planning slightly different. In some cases, finance may dictate a target budget expense, independent of the staffing models presented. In far fewer cases, the finance department may incorporate the staffing plan the WFM team develops, establishing the budget from the recommended capacity plan outputs. In most organizations, the process lies between these two extremes, where finance and workforce management may go through multiple iterative rounds to land on a final staffing / expense value, with each round negotiating & justifying "why volume, handle time, shrink, occupancy, and attrition is X% higher or lower than last year"

To assign a qualitative risk score to the final budget value, we consider that it is less likely organizations operate purely on a "service level-first" model at any cost. If your organization simply staffs to any value presented, then assigning a financial risk rating has little meaning in this system; you would simply give your Service Level an "A" and if fully funded, Financial risk would be minimal (an A-Rating) so long as your capacity plan projections were sound.

Given that finance generally has a strong hand in many organizations, we'll assume for this risk rating system that there will be a gap between the desired WFM staffing levels generated with the FTE distribution, and the associated financial budget being allocated to staff the contact center. Within this approach, assigning a risk rating, or likelihood to achieve budget requires we take a true risk-assessed FTE distribution, and examine the ability to tune our staffing levels down when staffing variances run positive (FTE actual > FTE required at any point in time).

Key points to stress before assigning financial risk rating:

The capacity plan should not incorporate unproven bets. Example, in an initial round of modeling, AHT for tenured agents runs 600 seconds, with a minimum value of 570 and a maximum value 630, and the distribution is forecasted leveraging a PERT distribution described above. If in a subsequent round of planning, AHT is lowered to 580 with no corresponding reasoning (we'll just find a way to hit that number), then the associated risk rating system becomes invalid.
The capacity plan should assume right-sized staffing at the start of a planning cycle. Entering a planning cycle short-staffed introduces instability into operations and again invalidates the logic leveraged to assign a risk rating.

To establish the financial risk rating, we examine the outputs of both our FTE distribution and the associated financial distributions charts. In a simple grid, we align the FTEs required to staff a plan with the associated SL risk ratings as such:

FTE		SL Risk	Budget
233.8		A	$ 11,788,284	or more
229.8	233.7	B	$ 11,580,815	$ 11,788,283
226.9	229.7	C	$ 11,415,519	$ 11,580,814
224.5	226.8	D	$ 11,284,090	$ 11,415,518
	224.4	F	less than	$ 11,284,089

In that a plan with 234 FTE would receive an "A Rating" against service level. We also see that this plan would translate into a budget of ~$11.8 million. As we indicated, rarely does finance wish to cover all possible outcomes and simply assign the associated budget. For this exercise, we assume finance assigns a budget of $11.225 million, presenting a budget gap, assuming we plan to staff to 234:

FTE		SL Risk	Budget		Budget Gap
233.8		A	$ 11,788,284	or more	$ (563,284)
229.8	233.7	B	$ 11,580,815	$ 11,788,283	$ (355,815)
226.9	229.7	C	$ 11,415,519	$ 11,580,814	$ (190,519)
224.5	226.8	D	$ 11,284,090	$ 11,415,518	$ (59,090)
	224.4	F	less than	$ 11,284,089


				Budget	$ 11,225,000
				Planned Staff	234

If we are positioned to be adequately staffed to 234 FTE, we have a budget gap of $563k, or approximately 5%. While our scenarios modeled leveraging Monte Carlo simulation indicate 234 FTE would cover 90% of outcomes, that staff hedges to the right of the curve of the outcomes. To assess our financial risk, we introduce the degree to which we can remove costs consistently leveraging automation. These methods are a key enabler in the future WFM operating model; staffing above the mean, and leveraging natural variability plus automation to optimize service level and expense.

To generate a financial risk assumption, we categorize what real-time automations are in place & adoption rates to forecast the expense to be removed

Automation Adoption	High	Medium	Low	None
VTO	$ 117,882.84	$ 70,729.70
Training	$ 259,342.25	$ 212,189.11	$ 165,035.98
Coaching	$ 141,459.41
AHT/ACW	$ 58,941.42	$ 23,576.57	$ 11,788.28
Adherence	$ 7,072.97	$ 5,894.14
Total Automations	$ 584,698.89	$ 312,389.53	$ 176,824.26	$ -

Adjusted Gap	$ 21,414.89	$ (250,894.47)	$ (386,459.74)	$ (563,284.00)
% Gap Budget	0.2%	-2.2%	-3.4%	-5.0%
	Meet	Miss by 2.2%	Miss by 3.4%	Miss by 5%

Then the results are combined with the organization's threshold for budget achievement, example:

Budget	Financial Risk
Meet or Exceed	A
Miss by up to 3%	B
Miss by 4%-5%	C
Miss 6-7%	D
Miss >7%	F

In the above example, the FTE staffed was 234, however, automation reduced expenses in the high adoption category to meet budget.

Employee Risk

The section seeks further feedback and input from WFM community. Future development.

Overall Risk Rating

Currently, a combination of: Service Level Risk + Financial Risk + Employee Risk as described above.

Option Value of Flexibility (OVF) Goal

The Option Value of Flexibility represents a new goal metric that quantifies the economic benefit of adaptive workforce planning versus rigid, deterministic planning. This metric directly builds upon the variance and probability concepts established above, translating operational flexibility into measurable financial value.

Core Definition

The Option Value of Flexibility is calculated as:

$OVF = 𝔼 [C_{static}] - 𝔼 [C_{flexible}]$

Where:

E[C_static] = Expected cost under static planning (fixed staffing with safety buffer)
E[C_flexible] = Expected cost under flexible planning (adaptive staffing bands)
E = Expected value operator across probability-weighted scenarios

Component Breakdown

Static Planning Cost Function

Under static planning, organizations staff at a fixed level based on average demand plus a safety buffer:

$C_{static} (D_{i}) = {\begin{cases} C_{regular} & if D_{i} \leq S_{static} \\ C_{regular} + C_{overtime} + C_{outsource} + C_{penalty} & if D_{i} > S_{static} \end{cases}$

Where:

D_i = Demand in scenario i
S_static = Static staffing level = μ_demand × (1 + buffer%)
C_regular = Base wage costs
C_overtime = min(gap × 0.3, staff × 0.2) × wage × OT_multiplier
C_outsource = remaining_gap × wage × outsource_multiplier
C_penalty = abandonment_rate × calls × penalty_per_abandon

Flexible Planning Cost Function

Under flexible planning, organizations use probabilistic staffing bands:

$C_{flexible} (D_{i}) = {\begin{cases} C_{P 50} & if D_{i} \leq P_{50} \\ C_{P 80} & if P_{50} < D_{i} \leq P_{80} \\ C_{P 95} & if P_{80} < D_{i} \leq P_{95} \\ C_{surge} & if D_{i} > P_{95} \end{cases}$

Where:

P₅₀, P₈₀, P₉₅ = Staffing levels at 50th, 80th, and 95th percentiles
Each band has progressively lower adjustment costs due to preparation

Calculation Methodology

The OVF calculation follows these steps:

Generate Demand Scenarios: Create n scenarios (typically 1000+) using the variance distributions established in Probability & Variance Goals
Calculate Costs: For each scenario, calculate costs under both strategies
Weight by Probability: Apply probability weights based on distribution parameters
Compute Expected Values: Calculate E[C_static] and E[C_flexible]
Determine OVF: Subtract flexible from static expected costs

Sample Calculation

Scenario Type	Probability	Demand	Static Cost	Flexible Cost	Weighted Savings
Low (P10)	10%	180 agents	$45,000	$38,000	$700
Normal (P50)	50%	200 agents	$52,000	$48,000	$2,000
High (P80)	30%	220 agents	$78,000	$61,000	$5,100
Peak (P95)	10%	240 agents	$125,000	$82,000	$4,300
Total Expected OVF per Hour:					$12,100

Annual OVF = $12,100 × 12 hours × 250 days = $36,300,000

Setting OVF Goals

Organizations should establish OVF targets based on:

Current volatility levels (from variance analysis)
Automation adoption rates (VTO, training delivery, adherence management)
Organizational maturity in variance harvesting
Risk tolerance established in risk ratings

Recommended OVF targets by volatility:

Demand Volatility (CoV)	Minimum OVF Target (per 1000 agents)	Stretch OVF Target
Low (10-20%)	$400,000	$600,000
Medium (20-30%)	$800,000	$1,200,000
High (30-40%)	$1,500,000	$2,100,000
Very High (40%+)	$2,000,000	$3,000,000

Relationship to Risk Ratings

OVF directly connects to the risk rating framework:

Higher OVF = Greater resilience to variance = Lower service level risk
Flexible planning = Better financial risk management through controlled cost escalation
Adaptive staffing = Improved employee risk through predictable workload distribution

Organizations achieving high OVF demonstrate:

Service level risk ratings improve by 1-2 grades
Financial risk becomes more predictable (tighter confidence intervals)
Employee satisfaction increases through reduced emergency overtime

Measuring OVF Achievement

Track OVF realization through:

Monthly variance capture rate: Actual savings / Theoretical OVF
Automation effectiveness: % of variance converted to productive activities
Cost avoidance tracking: Overtime avoided, outsourcing reduced, penalties prevented
Service stability: Standard deviation of interval service levels

OVF Realization Formula

$OVF Realization Rate = \frac{Actual Cost Savings}{Theoretical OVF} \times 100 %$

Target realization rates:

Year 1: 40-50% (learning phase)
Year 2: 60-70% (optimization phase)
Year 3+: 75-85% (maturity phase)

Integration with Existing Goals

OVF complements and enhances traditional WFM goals:

Forecast Accuracy: Higher accuracy increases OVF by reducing uncertainty premiums
Schedule Quality Index: Flexible scheduling enables OVF capture
MTTR: Faster response increases variance capture opportunities
Attrition Goals: Lower attrition reduces the cost of flexibility

Implementation Requirements

To effectively track and achieve OVF goals:

Variance modeling capabilities (Monte Carlo simulation)
Real-time variance harvesting tools (automation platform)
Flexible workforce policies (VTO, overtime, training delivery)
Measurement infrastructure (cost tracking by scenario type)

Example OVF Dashboard Metrics

Metric	Current	Target	Status
Theoretical OVF (Annual)	$1,247,000	$1,200,000	Exceeding
Realization Rate	68%	70%	On Track
Variance Capture Efficiency	42%	45%	On Track
Cost Avoidance YTD	$847,000	$800,000	Exceeding
Service Stability (StDev)	8.2%	<10%	Achieving

Summary

The Option Value of Flexibility transforms variance from a problem to be minimized into an opportunity to be harvested. By establishing OVF as a formal goal, organizations:

Quantify the business case for adaptive planning
Justify investments in automation and flexibility tools
Align stakeholders around variance as value
Create measurable targets for transformation initiatives

OVF represents the bridge between traditional efficiency metrics and the adaptive, resilient operations required in the Collaborative Intelligence Era.

Probabilistic Staffing Bands & Percentile Targets

Staffing Bands: Report staffing and outcomes at P50/P80/P95, not single points.
Percentile Targets: $Target: P_{80} \geq threshold for \geq 12 of 13 weeks$ (set realistic achievement for stochastic metrics).

Scenario Robustness Score

$Robustness = \frac{Scenarios meeting SLA}{Total scenarios tested} \times 100 %$ (Monte Carlo fan‑chart context; pair with sensitivity analysis).

Band Stability (KPI)

$Band Stability = \frac{Intervals within band}{Total intervals} \times 100 %$ — track adherence of SL/Occupancy/Adherence to agreed bands.

Level 5 — Pioneering (Autonomous Optimization)

At Level 5 we connect operations to enterprise value and codify governance for autonomy and safety.

Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) Impact

Link workforce interventions to value: $Δ CLV = \frac{1}{| treated |} \sum_{i \in treated} ({CLV}_{i, post} - {CLV}_{i, pre})$ .

Learning Velocity

$Learning Velocity = \frac{Δ Capability}{Δ t} \times Adoption Rate$ (capability can be new skills mastered, AHT improvement, or quality gains).

Fairness Index

$Fairness = 1 - \frac{σ (outcomes by group)}{μ (outcomes overall)}$ — higher is more equitable; monitor across demographic or context groups.

Time‑to‑Rollback (TTR)

$TTR = {Time}_{issue detected} \to {Time}_{previous state restored}$ — safety rail for autonomous/assistive systems.

Decision Quality Score (DQS) — Placeholder

Definition & weighting to be finalized (captures decision outcomes quality under autonomy; pair with Explainability Coverage).

Counter‑Metric Pairs (Governance)

Every efficiency metric needs a counterbalance (e.g., AHT vs FCR/CLV; Occupancy vs Burnout Risk; Adherence vs EEI). Align thresholds to value and safety.

Appendix: Complete Metrics Inventory

(List of all metrics referenced throughout reorganized Goals page, alphabetically)

AAR — Automation Acceptance Rate
ABA — Abandonment Rate
Adherence — Schedule adherence percentage
AHT — Average Handle Time
ASA — Average Speed of Answer
Attrition/Retention Forecast Accuracy
Band Stability
CLV Impact — Customer Lifetime Value change
Decision Quality Score (DQS)
Dynamic Adherence Rate
EEI — Employee Experience Index
EWI — Employee Wellbeing Index (simplified)
Fairness Index
Financial Risk Rating
Forecast Accuracy (Volume)
Learning Velocity
Minimal Interval Error Rate
MTTR — Mean Time to Respond/Repair
Occupancy
OVF — Option Value of Flexibility
Overall Risk Rating
Probabilistic Staffing Bands (P50/P80/P95)
Scenario Robustness Score
Schedule Control
SCR — Supervisor Coaching Ratio
Service Level
Service Level Risk Rating
Service Level Stability (SLS)
SQI — Schedule Quality Index
Time-to-Rollback (TTR)
TTS — Placeholder metric
VCE — Variance Capture Efficiency
WAPE — Weighted Absolute Percentage Error

Anonymous

Search

WFM Goals

New WFM Goals

Why Goals Matter in Workforce Management

The Nuance of Metric Definition

A Framework, Not a Prescription

Your Path Forward

Maturity Overview (Goals by Level)

Level 1 — Initial / Manual (Establish Measurement)

Service Level (SL)

Definition

Formula

Industry Examples

Channel-Specific Targets

Calculation Example

Key Considerations

Average Speed of Answer (ASA)

Definition

Formula

Industry Benchmarks

Relationship to Service Level

Calculation Example

Abandonment Rate (ABA)

Definition

Formula

Industry Targets

Abandon Timing Analysis

Key Drivers

Average Handle Time (AHT)

Definition

Formula

Industry Benchmarks

Channel Comparison

AHT Optimization Balance

Occupancy

Definition

Formula

Occupancy Targets by Size

Occupancy Impact Analysis

Erlang Relationship

Key Considerations

Schedule Adherence

Definition

Formula

Industry Standards

Adherence Exception Categories

Calculation Example

Implementation Best Practices

Measurement Infrastructure Requirements

Data Collection Systems

Reporting Cadence

Success Criteria for Level 1

Summary

Level 2 — Foundational (Governance & Consistency)

Weighted Absolute Percentage Error (WAPE)

Definition

Formula

Why WAPE Over Other Metrics

Calculation Example - Daily WAPE

Interval-Level WAPE Calculation

WAPE Interpretation Guidelines

Time Horizon Considerations

Relationship to Minimal Interval Variance

WAPE Decomposition Analysis

Multi-Level WAPE Tracking

WAPE Best Practices

Common WAPE Pitfalls

Integration with Other Metrics

Summary

Forecast Accuracy Goals: Call Volume

Schedule Quality Index Goals

Forecast Accuracy – Attrition / Retention Goal

Level 3 — Progressive (Variance Harvesting)

Mean Time to Respond/Repair for Intraday Variance

Automation Acceptance Rate (AAR) Goal

Core Definition

Prompt Categories and Acceptance Dynamics

Prompt Type Classification

Detailed Calculation Methodology