A mobile, distributed workforce
More than 2,300 employees worked predominantly in the field and from mobile devices, supported by a broad contractor workforce. The technology had to work where the work happened, not only at a desk.
CASE STUDY · WFM & FIELD SERVICE TECHNOLOGY
One workforce. One platform.
A decision built for complexity.
How KJM helped a large, private equity backed trans-Tasman field services business turn fragmented systems, complex mobile scheduling and competing operating models into a clear, evidence-based workforce technology investment decision.
- 2,300+ employees
- Australia + New Zealand
- WFM + field service selection
4 businesses
An organisation needed a consistent operating model across four established businesses with disparate systems.
12 systems
Fragmented technology created duplicate handling, inconsistent reporting and limited visibility across the combined organisation.
178 requirements
Functional requirements were assessed across workforce, field service, integration, security, analytics and future automation. In addition there were a further 101 technical and AI requirements.
THE CHALLENGE
A combined business could not scale four different ways of working.
Four established businesses had come together, bringing different systems, processes and operating practices. The organisation wanted to simplify a landscape of 12 technology systems and create one consistent approach to workforce and field operations across Australia and New Zealand.
The fragmentation was creating duplicate data entry, manual reconciliation, inconsistent reporting and making it harder to optimise resources across the combined organisation. The future platform therefore needed to simplify the technology stack, standardise workflows and improve mobile usability, data quality, integration and management visibility.
As a private equity backed business, the technology investment also needed to support the broader value-creation thesis. Functional fit alone was not enough. The case needed to demonstrate how the investment could improve capacity, efficiency, resource utilisation, management visibility and the ability to scale.
Scheduling that changes throughout the day
Planned and recurring work sat alongside reactive and urgent jobs. Schedules needed frequent replanning while balancing overtime, skills, travel, crews, tools and the requirements of each job.
Enterprise integration, not another silo
The future platform needed open integration capability, scalable cloud infrastructure and reliable B2B interoperability with enterprise and customer systems. Integration was treated as a core selection requirement, not a later enhancement.
Growth without simply adding headcount
The business wanted technology to release capacity through better scheduling, resource utilisation and less manual administration, rather than relying on workforce growth to increase operational throughput.
THE REAL DECISION
This was not simply a software comparison.
The chosen platform needed to support a future operating model for a newly combined business. That meant testing whether vendors could handle real scheduling complexity, mobile work, subcontractors, integration, data, security, reporting and resource constraints rather than selecting on feature lists or presentation quality.
It also meant proving that the preferred option could be implemented, integrated and scaled without creating unacceptable operational risk, while supporting the commercial outcomes expected by the Board and executives.
THE STARTING POINT
Four businesses. Twelve systems. Limited whole-of-business visibility.
Each business had evolved its own technology landscape, limiting the consistent information needed to make operational decisions across the combined organisation.
DEFINING WHAT MATTERS
Four businesses. One agreed requirements framework.
Operational needs, prioritised across the business and supported by technology, security and governance requirements.
MARKET SCAN
A broad market. A shortlist shaped by business needs.
The agreed requirements provide a consistent basis for assessing capability, integration and delivery fit.
TESTING THE FIT
Beyond the sales pitch. Evidence against agreed priorities.
Scripted demonstrations and structured assessment make strengths, gaps and trade-offs visible.
SUPPORTING INVESTMENT VALUE
A clear decision. Aligned to the investment thesis.
Connecting operational priorities with private equity value creation, with costs, trade-offs and delivery considerations made explicit.
THE SELECTION FRAMEWORK
A clear line from business need to vendor evidence.
KJM structured the selection so each stage reduced uncertainty and increased the quality of evidence available to the client. The detailed evaluation covered 178 functional and technical requirements across work management, planning and rostering, scheduling, mobile field delivery, reactive and planned maintenance, subcontractors, analytics, cost management, portals, security, privacy, audit, integration and future automation.
Market scan
Screen the WFM and field service market against the organisation’s highest-priority requirements, scale and operating context.
178-requirement RFP
Test shortlisted vendors against a detailed and consistent functional and technical requirement set, response structure and evidence standard.
Scripted demonstrations
Require vendors to show how priority scenarios would actually work, using demonstration scripts aligned to the client’s operations.
Weighted evaluation
Combine functional, operational, technical and commercial evidence in balanced scorecards to identify the strongest candidates for executive consideration.
The result was a traceable decision process in which leadership could see why vendors progressed, where trade-offs existed and what evidence supported the recommendation, while maintaining a clear link back to the organisation’s commercial and investment objectives.
WHAT KJM DID
One structured process, from market scan to Board decision.
KJM brought established vendor-selection frameworks, current WFM market knowledge and independent evaluation discipline. That allowed the client to move quickly without compromising the quality of a decision that would shape how thousands of employees worked.
In parallel, KJM worked with Finance, operational leaders and wider business stakeholders to develop a separate financial model for the investment. Costs, benefits, capacity assumptions, efficiencies and key sensitivities were tested so the commercial case was as robust as the technology evaluation.
Define the decision criteria
Translate high-priority operational, workforce, mobile, scheduling, integration, reporting, security and data needs into criteria that could be assessed consistently.
Scan the market
Identify WFM and field service solutions with credible capability for the organisation’s scale, operating model and bespoke requirements.
Run the detailed RFP
Develop and manage an RFP covering 178 functional requirements, creating comparable responses and a strong evidence base for evaluation.
Score responses objectively
Use balanced and weighted scorecards to compare vendors across the criteria that mattered most, rather than allowing a single feature or stakeholder preference to dominate.
Test the scenarios in demonstrations
Develop demonstration scripts around priority operational scenarios and score what vendors showed, not simply what they said the product could do.
Build and test the investment case
Work with Finance, operational leaders and wider business stakeholders to develop the separate financial model, validate assumptions, quantify benefits and costs, test sensitivities and translate the recommendation into a comprehensive business case for Executive Leadership Team and Board consideration.
DECISION GOVERNANCE
Make a complex investment decision defensible.
A credible selection process needed more than a ranking. KJM designed the evaluation and business case so the final recommendation could be traced back to agreed business priorities, commercial assumptions and evidence collected through the process.
178 defined requirements
The evaluation covered work management, workforce planning, rostering, scheduling, mobile delivery, subcontractors, analytics, cost management, portals, security, privacy, audit, integration and future automation.
Comparable vendor evidence
A common RFP structure and demonstration scripts gave stakeholders a consistent basis for comparing different products and vendor approaches.
Financial modelling with the business
KJM worked with Finance, operations and wider business stakeholders on a separate financial model covering costs, benefits, capacity assumptions, efficiencies and key sensitivities.
Alignment to the investment thesis
The business case connected technology capability to the outcomes that mattered commercially, including greater operational capacity, reduced manual effort, improved resource utilisation, system consolidation and better management information.
Implementation and integration viability
The preferred solution also had to demonstrate a credible path through integration, data, security, testing, user readiness and staged deployment. Implementation feasibility was assessed alongside functionality and value.
Board-level scrutiny
The recommendation, financial assumptions and supporting evidence were developed to withstand detailed review by a private equity backed Board, including whether the proposed investment aligned to the broader value-creation thesis for the business.
The scorecard and financial model informed the decision. They did not replace judgement. KJM used the framework to make the evidence, assumptions, trade-offs, implementation risks and rationale visible to stakeholders and the Board.
EXPERTISE IN THE MARKET
Start with credible options, not a long list.
KJM’s knowledge of leading WFM and field service vendors meant the market scan could focus quickly on solutions with a realistic fit for the organisation’s scale, mobile workforce and scheduling complexity. That reduced noise early and preserved stakeholder effort for the vendors most capable of meeting the need.
Independence remained important throughout. The recommendation was based on the client’s requirements, the evidence produced through the process, implementation viability and the financial case developed with the wider business, not an allegiance to a particular platform.
THE RESULT
A complex decision became clear, structured and defensible.
The client progressed from a fragmented technology landscape and broad market question to two preferred vendors supported by 178 assessed requirements, structured RFP evidence, scored demonstrations and a robust financial business case. The recommendation was then tested extensively by the Board, including whether the proposed investment supported the organisation’s value-creation strategy and broader investment thesis.
A shortlist grounded in operational fit
Vendors were assessed against the realities of a large, mobile field workforce and 178 functional and 101 technical requirements rather than generic WFM capability.
Greater confidence in the decision
Weighted scorecards and scripted demonstrations gave leaders a transparent view of strengths, gaps and trade-offs between the leading options.
A tested financial case
A separate financial model developed with Finance and wider business stakeholders linked costs, benefits, capacity and efficiency assumptions to the operating model and allowed key sensitivities to be challenged before Board review.
A Board-ready investment decision
The business case brought the financial model, commercial rationale, vendor evidence, implementation considerations, risks and strategic alignment together so the Board could test the recommendation against the organisation’s investment thesis.
THE KJM DIFFERENCE
Move quickly without making the decision shallow.
The client had a fixed decision timetable and did not have the internal capacity to build and run the selection process to the required depth. KJM mobilised quickly, bringing proven frameworks and existing artefacts rather than starting from a blank page.
What made the difference was the combination of WFM market knowledge, practical understanding of complex workforce operations, structured evaluation, financial modelling and vendor independence. KJM tested not only whether vendors could meet today’s requirements, but whether the preferred solution could be integrated, implemented and scaled across the organisation.
Working with Finance, operational leaders and wider business stakeholders, KJM translated the operational case for change into a robust investment case linking platform capability to capacity, efficiency, scalability and the broader investment thesis. The result was not simply a preferred vendor, but a decision framework and business case that could withstand detailed Executive and Board scrutiny.
WFM STRATEGY · VENDOR SELECTION
Choosing a platform is easy. Choosing the right operating model is harder.
If you are consolidating systems, replacing WFM technology or testing which platform can genuinely support your workforce, KJM can structure the decision from market scan and detailed evaluation through to financial modelling, business case and Board recommendation.
Kira
KJM virtual employee
Ready to help
