Work Output: Planning feedback
Objective. Read planning feedback as actual output feeding back into capacity and standards assumptions - an input to planning, not a realised plan or a guaranteed future.
Planning feedback answers 'what do our real output results tell the planning process?' It closes the loop from measured output back to the assumptions - standards, handling, capacity - that workforce planning relies on, so plans are informed by reality rather than guesswork.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
CSMs use planning feedback to show how observed output should update planning assumptions; Sales uses it to connect Work Output to the workforce-management story. The customer question is 'are our planning assumptions matching what teams actually produce, and where should they be revised?' It is a feedback input, not a forecast and not an executed plan.
The task
Scope to the process and period and compare observed output against the standards and assumptions planning has been using. Identify where reality and assumption diverge - a standard set too high or too low against actual clean output - and flag it as a candidate revision. For a CSM, the task is to route this to the planning owner with the caveat that observed output is one input among several, and that a revision should be agreed, not applied automatically.
How to read it
This screen carries observed, measured output into planning as a signal - it is an input, not a plan and not a promise about the future. The classic misread is treating a feedback figure as a realised planning outcome or assuming that because output was X it will stay X. Output varies with mix, volume and season, so a single period's result is a data point to inform assumptions, not a new standard to lock in. Keep observed actuals and planning projections firmly apart, just as projections are kept apart from results throughout the app.
Honest limits
This screen does not set the plan, prove that a revised assumption is correct, or guarantee future output. It surfaces where measured output and assumptions diverge on seeded data. Confirm with product how feedback flows into the planning applications and whose decision a revision is, and always anchor a proposed change to the customer's agreed standards rather than a single demo period.
Interpretation check
Planning feedback is measured output fed back as an input to planning assumptions, not a realised plan or a guarantee of future output; a single period's result informs assumptions, it does not lock in a new standard.
Practical task
Compare one process's observed output to its planning standard, identify a divergence, and write a one-line finding framing it as a candidate revision for the planning owner rather than an applied change.
Self-check
Output was 10% above the planning standard this period. Do you raise the standard?
Not automatically - it is one input, and output varies with mix, volume and season. Flag it as a candidate revision for the planning owner to agree, not a change to apply on one period.
Is a planning-feedback figure a realised outcome?
No - it is observed output used to inform assumptions. Keep observed actuals and planning projections apart, the same way projections are kept apart from results everywhere in the app.
Whose decision is a standard revision?
The planning owner's, with the customer's agreement - this screen surfaces the divergence, it does not make the change.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at https://work-output.demo.timechamp.io/#/planning; exact controls, labels and on-screen figures are SME-validation-pending.