Skip to main content
People Experience Solutions

Implementation readiness before design decisions start moving.

PES prepares HR, payroll and workforce technology programs for design and build: settling scope, giving each decision an owner, and confirming the data and test scenarios before the implementation partner's workshops begin.

Design workshops expose every unresolved decision

Implementation partners run design workshops to a fixed timetable. If the business arrives without agreed scope, an owner for each decision, or an understanding of its own rules and data, the decisions still get made. Often the implementation partner makes them, as assumptions in a design document.

The cost shows up later: change requests, rework during testing, and a stage gate reached with material decisions still open.

Common signs

  • Scope with unresolved inclusions, exclusions and dependencies
  • No agreed owner for cross-functional design decisions
  • Subject matter experts who have not seen the questions they will be asked
  • Data sources, quality and ownership not yet confirmed
  • Payroll and workforce scenarios that cannot be tested because the expected result is unknown
  • An operating model left until after go-live

When organisations bring PES in

The best time is between selecting the vendor and the first design workshop, but PES also joins programs already under way.

  • A preferred vendor or System Integrator has been selected and design is about to start.
  • The SOW is signed and client responsibilities are still unclear.
  • A program is already in design and decisions keep being reopened.
  • Testing or parallel run is approaching and nobody can say what ready means.
  • A sponsor wants an independent view of delivery risk before a stage gate.

What needs to be ready

PES works through each area with the people who own it, and records what is decided, assumed or still open.

  1. Governance and decision rights

    Who decides, who owns issues and how trade-offs are escalated, including what the Design Authority can approve.

  2. Scope and assumptions

    What is included, excluded, deferred or dependent on other workstreams, checked against the SOW.

  3. Process and policy

    Which current processes are confirmed, changed or retired, and which policy decisions must be made before design.

  4. Data

    What data is required, where it comes from, who owns it and how its quality will be proven.

  5. Operating model

    How the system will be supported after go-live, including roles, controls and service ownership.

  6. Change and stakeholders

    Which groups are affected, what they need to know and where capability gaps exist.

  7. Testing and acceptance

    Which scenarios, worked examples, acceptance criteria and parallel run checks are needed, with expected results agreed in advance.

Typical outputs

  • Implementation readiness assessment
  • Design workshop preparation packs
  • Decision and assumptions log
  • Scope clarification against the SOW
  • Data and integration assumptions
  • Risk and dependency register
  • Test scenario and acceptance approach
  • Readiness checklist for each stage gate

Risks this work addresses

  • Design decisions made by default by the implementation partner
  • Change requests caused by scope that was never settled
  • Subject matter experts pulled into workshops without time or preparation
  • Testing that runs to plan but does not prove people will be paid correctly
  • Go-live approved with material risks the sponsor has not seen

Independent challenge when the program needs it

PES can also act as an independent check during delivery: reviewing program artefacts, testing assumptions and giving the sponsor a direct view of risk before a stage gate. Build, configuration and integration stay with the vendor, System Integrator or internal technology team.

Questions an assurance review tests

  • Is the scope clear enough to build against?
  • Are the design decisions owned by the right people?
  • Are subject matter experts prepared for the decisions they will need to make?
  • Are payroll and workforce scenarios testable?
  • Are vendor assumptions visible and realistic?
  • Is the operating model being designed early enough?

Project examples

Client names, sectors, project values and specific outcomes are not disclosed.

Implementation readiness before design workshops

Implementation readinessPayrollT&A
Situation
A payroll and T&A implementation was approaching design and configuration activity with unresolved scope, unclear data requirements, open integration decisions and limited business readiness.
PES role
Assessed readiness gaps, facilitated pre-workshop decision-making, developed assumptions logs and prepared the business for design-phase engagement with the implementation vendor.
Outputs
  • Readiness assessment
  • Decision and assumptions log
  • Workshop preparation packs
  • Scope clarification document
  • Risk and dependency register
Decision supported
Whether the implementation should proceed to design workshops or resolve readiness gaps first, and what actions were required before vendor workshops could be productive.

Delivery assurance during payroll and T&A implementation

Delivery assurancePayrollT&A
Situation
An organisation implementing a new payroll and time and attendance system had concerns about scope alignment, vendor decision quality and test readiness as the program approached parallel run.
PES role
Provided independent advisory review across delivery governance, scope alignment, test preparation and executive reporting through the final delivery phases.
Outputs
  • Delivery assurance findings
  • Risk and issue register
  • Scope alignment review
  • Test readiness observations
  • Sponsor briefing notes
Decision supported
Whether the program was ready to proceed to parallel run and go-live, and what risks required executive attention before cutover.
All project examples

Common questions

Our implementation partner has its own methodology. Why would we need readiness support?

The partner's methodology covers how it delivers its scope. Readiness covers the client side: the decisions, data, people and policies the partner depends on you to provide. PES works on that side, alongside the partner, and does not take over build or configuration.

When should readiness work start?

Ideally between selecting the vendor and the first design workshop, so the SOW, scope and decision owners are settled before the timetable starts. It can also start mid-program, when decisions keep being reopened or a stage gate is close.

Can PES review a program that is already running?

Yes. Delivery assurance reviews governance, scope alignment, test preparation and reporting, and gives the sponsor findings before a stage gate, parallel run or go-live decision.

Is this only for payroll programs?

No. The same approach applies to HRIS, time and attendance, rostering and workforce management implementations. Payroll and time and attendance programs carry the most compliance risk, so testing and parallel run get particular attention there.

Related services

Related insights

Approaching design, testing or a stage gate?

Send a short note about where the program is up to, and we'll arrange a discussion about what needs to be ready and who needs to decide it.

Request a discovery callView services