Real-Time Adherence - evidence-led demo script
Objective. Run a live, evidence-led RTA demo that lands the one idea - presence is not productivity - using the 5-beat structure (question -> screen -> evidence -> interpretation -> next step). Show the three layers in order, reveal the 'on-schedule but below output' moment, state the honest limit out loud, and close on a discovery question.
The demo has one job: make the prospect feel the gap their current adherence tool leaves. Two agents look identical on a normal green board; one is producing and one is not. RTA shows the difference while the shift is still fixable. Run it in under eight minutes with two drill-downs and one explicit limitation, exactly as the sales certification requires.
See it in the demo
The story arc
The arc moves from a question the prospect already worries about to a moment they cannot unsee:
- Open on the floor leader's problem - 'during the shift, can your leads tell someone off-plan from someone on-plan who isn't producing?' Most tools cannot, and they know it.
- Show the one live board that carries all three layers together, not just presence.
- Reveal the twist - a green, schedule-perfect agent who is below the output standard. Two agents, identical on a normal board, completely different problems.
- Show it is intraday - the gap is visible now, while the day is still fixable, not in tomorrow's report.
- Name the honest limit so the prospect trusts you, then close on a discovery question that qualifies the deal.
The emotional beat is the twist in step 3. Build to it; do not open with it.
The screens to show, in order, with the one value point each
Keep to these four screens; each carries exactly one point.
- Control Room - https://rta.demo.timechamp.io/#/control - value point: 'one live board, three layers - presence, work and output - for the whole floor, right now.' Let them see mostly-green and ask 'so you're fine?'
- Work and output adherence - https://rta.demo.timechamp.io/#/output - value point (the twist): 'here is an agent green on schedule and active - and below the output standard. Your current board would call this person fine.' This is the aha.
- Coverage and intraday - https://rta.demo.timechamp.io/#/coverage - value point: 'and here is the interval going thin while there is still time to act - overtime, move a break, reassign - not an apology tomorrow.'
- Live adherence (agent drill-down) - https://rta.demo.timechamp.io/#/agents - value point: 'drill to the individual to coach the right person for the right reason - and notice a red state can be a correct reassignment, so the tool prompts a look, not a verdict.'
Two drill-downs (output and agent) satisfy the certification; do not tour every screen.
The 5 beats, scripted
- Question: 'Today, when a shift is running, who watches drift and how late is the signal - and can they separate someone off-plan from someone on-plan but not producing?'
- Screen: open the Control Room, scoped to one team and the current interval.
- Evidence: flip from the green schedule view to the output layer and surface the schedule-perfect, below-output agent; then show the thinning interval in Coverage.
- Interpretation: 'Schedule adherence answers are they on plan. It does not answer is the plan producing work - that is what the work and output layers are for. And this is live, so your lead can act inside the shift.'
- Next step: 'Can we take one of your real shifts and map what your leads can and cannot see today?' - turning the demo into a discovery / pilot conversation.
The explicit limitation to state out loud
Say this plainly, every time - it builds trust and pre-empts the inevitable objection:
'What you are seeing runs on our seeded demo data, so the three-layer model is real but these specific numbers and the refresh speed are not your environment. In production, the output layer is only as strong as your output standard and your activity capture coverage - if those are not yet trusted, that layer is directional, not a performance verdict on a person. We confirm the real data latency and which of your schedule and activity sources are supported with our product team before we quote anything.'
Stating the limit is also the honest answer to 'is this just surveillance?' - the output layer exists to protect delivery and redirect coaching, and capture policy, access scope and employee communication are agreed up front (see Employee Monitoring).
The discovery questions this demo answers
Use these to qualify while the demo is fresh:
- 'How do you catch intraday drift today - who watches it live, and how late is the signal?' (establishes the pain and whether anyone owns the live floor.)
- 'Can your current adherence tool show that scheduled time turned into work meeting standard, or only that people were logged in?' (the displacement wedge - most incumbents prove only presence.)
- 'When a lead sees someone off-plan, how do they tell a problem from a legitimate reassignment today?' (sets up the red-state-is-not-a-verdict value.)
- 'What happens to a shortage you spot at end of day versus one you spot at 10:15?' (quantifies the intraday value in the customer's own terms.)
- 'Do you have a trusted output standard, and is activity capture already in place?' (qualifies whether the output layer is production-ready or a later phase.)
The answers tell you the smallest useful starting scope and whether this is a schedule-adherence replacement or a full three-layer play.
Interpretation check
The demo must land one idea: presence is not productivity. Schedule adherence proves people are on plan; the work and output layers prove the plan is producing work at standard. Never let the prospect leave reading a green board as proof of productivity, and always state out loud that the output layer is directional until their standard and capture are validated.
In the field
KnackGlobal (RCM, ~6,000 seats): run the displacement version - the incumbent proves presence; the work and output layers prove presence turned into work on time-sensitive claim queues, where same-day drift becomes missed filing/appeal windows. OVO (contact centre): the effort-to-outcome POC is the live proof that activity is not the goal, which is exactly the twist beat - presence and activity were there, the outcome was not.
Practical task
Rehearse and record a seven-minute live demo on rta.demo.timechamp.io using the four screens in order and the 5 beats. It must include: the opening floor-leader question, the schedule-green-but-below-output twist, one coverage drill showing a thinning interval, the explicit seeded-data-and-directional-output limitation stated out loud, and a closing discovery question. Then write the two discovery answers that would tell you the smallest useful starting scope.
Self-check
What is the single idea the demo exists to land, and in which beat does it land?
That presence is not productivity - two agents can look identical on a normal green board and be completely different problems. It lands in beat 3, the twist, on the work and output adherence screen; you build to it rather than open with it.
Which two drill-downs satisfy the certification, and why not tour every screen?
The output-adherence drill (the twist) and the agent drill-down (right person, right reason). Touring every screen dilutes the one idea and overruns the seven-to-eight-minute target - two purposeful drill-downs make the point and leave time for discovery.
State the explicit limitation you say out loud during this demo.
The model is real but it runs on seeded data, so these numbers and the refresh speed are not the customer's environment; in production the output layer is only as strong as their output standard and capture coverage and is directional until validated; real latency and supported sources are confirmed with product.
A prospect says 'we already have real-time adherence in our WFM.' What do you show and ask?
Likely true for schedule adherence. Show the work and output layers and ask whether their incumbent can prove scheduled time turned into work meeting standard. Most cannot - that is the displacement wedge.
Why show the agent drill-down's red-state-is-a-reassignment point in a sales demo?
It pre-empts the 'surveillance' objection and builds trust - the tool prompts a look, not a verdict, so it helps leads coach fairly rather than police presence. It makes the output layer land as delivery protection, not behaviour scoring.
Verified vs demo. All four screens are live and runnable in a call at rta.demo.timechamp.io on seeded data - ideal for the twist. The specific figures, refresh latency and which schedule/activity/output integrations a customer can use are production and entitlement dependent and must be confirmed with product; present the model, not the numbers, as fact.