Capacity Planning: SLA and TAT
Objective. Read the SLA/TAT definitions the plan targets and distinguish a contracted target (input) from measured attainment, confirming definitions match the contract.
This screen holds the SLA and turnaround (TAT) definitions the capacity plan is sized to meet. A CSM validates that these targets match the customer's contracts, because the requirement is only as right as the target it chases.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
A Sales or CSM person opens this to answer 'what SLAs and TATs is the plan sized to hit, and are they the real ones?' The requirement depends directly on these targets, so they must match the signed commitments. This screen is where the targets the plan uses are defined.
The task
Scope to the client or work type and read the SLA/TAT targets the plan is using. Confirm the definition (metric, threshold, measurement window) matches the customer's actual contract - not a demo default. The CSM move is validation against the agreement. Describe it as 'the SLA/TAT targets the plan is sized to'.
How to read it
SLA and TAT values here are targets the plan is held to - inputs, not measured attainment. Two misreads: reading them as current performance (attainment is measured against actuals in operational tools, not here), and assuming the definition matches the contract without checking. A tighter SLA/TAT raises the requirement; a wrong definition mis-sizes it. Read them as the standard being planned against.
Honest limits
This screen does not prove an SLA is being met, nor that the definition is contractually correct - confirm each against the customer's agreement with product and the account team. The link from SLA/TAT to required FTE depends on the standards, shrinkage and occupancy assumptions elsewhere in the plan.
Interpretation check
SLA and TAT figures here are targets the plan is sized to meet, not measured attainment - and their definitions must be confirmed against the customer's actual contract.
In the field
An RCM contract with a defined claims-TAT: sizing to the exact contractual definition (window and metric) is what keeps the hiring ask defensible and avoids planning to a target the customer never agreed.
Practical task
For one scope, read the SLA/TAT target the plan uses and write one line stating it is an input to confirm against the contract, not measured performance, and note how a tighter target would move the requirement.
Self-check
Is the SLA figure on this screen the customer's current attainment?
No - it is the target the plan is sized to hit. Attainment is measured against actuals in the operational/adherence tools, not on a planning screen.
Why validate the SLA/TAT definition, not just the number?
The requirement depends on it. A wrong metric, threshold or measurement window mis-sizes the plan; the definition must match the signed contract, not a demo default.
What happens to the requirement when the SLA tightens?
It rises - a faster/tighter target needs more capacity, via the standards and occupancy assumptions. A number quoted without its SLA is not defensible.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at /#/sla; exact controls and figures are SME-validation-pending.