How planning gets done
We reviewed how the pre-shift plan is built and who owns it each day.
Project snapshot 01 · Shift execution
Closing the gap between
shift plan and floor execution.
Plan and actual in one view, every 15 minutes, while the shift is still running.
How a real 15-minute execution tracker helped managers compare labor, rate, and output against plan before the shift recap.
Operational impact figures are confidential. The implementation details and representative views have been generalized while preserving the tracker's actual structure and decision logic.
- Execution view
- 15 min
- Plan-versus-actual comparison throughout the shift
- Operating-model change
- Data inputs
- 6
- Shift plan and WMS activity inputs combined in the tracker
- Representative example
- Manager signals
- 8
- Labor, rate, output, and exception signals visible during the shift
- Representative example
- Tracker views
- Sample data
- All charts and minute values below are illustrative
- Illustrative example
Project context
The plan was solid. The shift was a black box until recap.
The operation ran a real pre-shift plan. Expected volume, planned rates, and assigned headcount by process path. Once the shift started, managers had no clean way to compare what was actually happening against that plan.
They usually found out where execution drifted at the shift recap. By then the labor was already spent and the gap was already baked in. We built a 15-minute tracker that pulls WMS activity and compares it to the plan while the shift is still running.
Who this is for
The challenge
Waiting for the recap is waiting too long.
When the only view of execution arrives after the shift, every correction is a day late. Managers could feel when a path was falling behind, but feel isn't a number you can move labor against.
- No real-time comparison of actual execution against the shift plan.
- Rate lag on a process path went unseen until output was already short.
- Overstaffed and understaffed paths weren't visible while there was still time to rebalance.
- Late starts, late breaks, and late finishes only showed up in hindsight.
- Recap discussions ran on memory and gut feel, not specific 15-minute windows.
What the evidence showed
Understand the plan before building the tracker.
We didn't start with a screen. We started with how the plan gets made, because a tracker is only as honest as the plan it compares against.
How rates are set
We checked how process-path rates are determined and whether they hold up on the floor.
How headcount is calculated
We mapped how expected headcount is derived from volume and planned rates.
What we changed
A 15-minute tracker that reads the WMS and the plan together.
The tracker ingests WMS activity automatically and compares actual execution against the shift plan in real time, broken into quarter-hour windows. These are the six inputs it reads.
Shift volume
Expected units by process path for the shift
Process-path rates
Planned rate per path, pick, pack, replen, ship
Planned labor
Hours and assignments built into the pre-shift plan
Expected headcount
People the plan assumes on each path
WMS activity data
Actual completed work pulled straight from the WMS
15-minute segments
Execution broken into quarter-hour windows
What it shows
Eight signals a manager can act on during the shift.
Each one compares the floor against the plan in the same 15-minute window, so a gap shows up while there is still time to move labor.
- Actual output vs. expected output
- Actual rate vs. planned rate
- Expected headcount vs. actual headcount
- Process paths running ahead or behind plan
- Areas where labor was higher than expected
- Areas where rates began lagging
- Late starts, late breaks, and late finishes
- Time off task patterns through the shift
Tracker views
What managers could see during the shift.
The views below are illustrative. They show the shape of what the tracker surfaces, using sample data. The two charts cover the whole shift, and the tables zoom into the 07:00 to 09:00 stretch.
Shift burn-down, volume remaining vs. plan
Units left to process across the shift
Planned burn-downActual remainingProjected finish
During the shift, the burn-down showed whether we were on pace to finish on time, early enough to move labor or pull volume forward. At recap, it anchored the conversation: the team could point to exactly where actual pulled away from plan, around the 08:00 break, instead of debating whether the shift felt slow.
Planned output vs. actual output
Total units completed by 15-minute interval
PlannedActual
The same 08:00 dip, seen as output. On the recap it would read as a slow shift. On the tracker it's a specific 15-minute window a manager could have acted on.
15-minute execution tracker, headcount by path
Expected vs. actual people on each process path, by 15-minute segment
| Time | Pick | Pack | Sort | Receive | Stow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exp | Act | Exp | Act | Exp | Act | Exp | Act | Exp | Act | |
| 07:00 | 18 | 15 | 12 | 13 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 07:15 | 18 | 15 | 12 | 13 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 07:30 | 18 | 15 | 12 | 13 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 07:45 | 18 | 15 | 12 | 13 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 08:00 | 18 | 15 | 12 | 13 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 08:15 | 18 | 17 | 12 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 08:30 | 18 | 17 | 12 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 08:45 | 18 | 17 | 12 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Shift avg | 18 | 15.8 | 12 | 12.3 | 8 | 8.0 | 6 | 5.0 | 6 | 7.0 |
over plan under plan. Pick runs short while pack carries extra, until a manager moves two people to pick after 08:00. That's a labor move made during the shift, not explained at recap.
15-minute segment rate by path
Actual rate in units per hour against each path's planned rate
| Time | PickPlan 120/hr | PackPlan 100/hr | SortPlan 200/hr | ReceivePlan 80/hr | StowPlan 90/hr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07:00 | 115 | 97 | 196 | 79 | 90 |
| 07:15 | 119 | 100 | 202 | 82 | 93 |
| 07:30 | 113 | 95 | 192 | 78 | 88 |
| 07:45 | 101 | 85 | 172 | 69 | 79 |
| 08:00 | 73 | 61 | 124 | 50 | 57 |
| 08:15 | 86 | 72 | 146 | 59 | 67 |
| 08:30 | 111 | 93 | 188 | 76 | 86 |
| 08:45 | 115 | 97 | 196 | 79 | 90 |
| Shift avg | 104 | 88 | 177 | 72 | 81 |
more than 10% behind plan slightly behind plan. The whole floor slips around 08:00 as breaks run long, then recovers. The tracker flags it in the next segment instead of at recap.
Illustrative example
The same drift, grouped by what caused it.
Plan-versus-actual tells you a path slipped. Grouping the lost time tells you why, so the next conversation targets the real driver instead of pushing the whole floor harder.
Time-off-task drivers · estimated minutes lost per shiftIllustrative · sample data
Break variance42 min
Breaks run long or stack up. Coverage drops in specific 15-minute windows and output dips before it recovers.
Staffing misalignment35 min
The operation had enough labor in the building, but not in the right process path at the right time. One area could carry more people than the plan required while another fell behind. The tracker made that imbalance visible in the next 15-minute window, giving managers a chance to rebalance labor before the gap became an end-of-shift miss.
Late / slow starts28 min
The shift opens behind. People clock in but aren't on task at the planned start, so the first segments run below rate.
Work readiness delays22 min
Work isn't ready when labor is. Replenishment, staging, or system release lags, so people are available but waiting.
End-of-shift slowdown19 min
Rate tails off in the last hour. Output drops well before the shift actually ends.
System, equipment, or supply delays16 min
Scanners, conveyors, printers, or supply gaps stall work. Time is lost to issues outside the labor plan.
Shift overrun / late clock-out12 min
Work runs past the planned end. Paid time stretches beyond the plan to finish volume that should have closed on time.
See this pattern in your own shift data?
Take the full snapshot with you.
We can assess how your shift plan is built and where it drifts from floor execution, then build the visibility around your WMS data. The diagnostic assessments are a focused way to start.
What changed
Labor moves during the shift, not after it.
Managers could see where they were overstaffed or understaffed while the shift was live, and rebalance the floor in real time instead of waiting for the recap.
Real-time labor moves
Overstaffed and understaffed paths surface while there's still a shift left to fix them.
Earlier on rate lag
A path slipping off its planned rate shows up in the next 15-minute window, not at recap.
Sharper recaps
Recap discussions point to specific 15-minute periods where execution deviated from plan.
Shared picture
Plan and actual sit in one view, so the floor and the office are reading the same numbers.
Why it matters
15 min
A plan you can't see against is just a hope.
Most operations already plan well. The gap is the hours between the start of the shift and the recap, where no one can tell whether the floor is holding to it. Put plan and actual in the same view, refreshed every 15 minutes, and a manager stops reacting to yesterday and starts managing the shift they're in.