When to Fix Workday and When to Rethink the Operating Model

Organizations invest heavily in Workday expecting it to transform how they operate. The implementation consumes years of attention, significant budget, and considerable organizational energy. When that transformation doesn't materialize, or when the system creates more problems than it solves, the natural response is to look at what's broken and fix it.

But "what's broken" can mean different things. Sometimes the issue is Workday configuration: the system isn't set up to do what the business needs. Sometimes the issue is deeper: the organization isn't set up to get value from the system, regardless of how well it's configured. Knowing which problem you're solving determines whether the fix will last. This article helps organizations diagnose whether their Workday challenges are configuration problems, operating model problems, or both, and provides guidance on how to approach each based on where the organization actually is.

Why This Question Matters Now

Many organizations are live on Workday but not getting the value they expected. Reports don't match, integrations are constantly having issues, payroll is constantly requiring inputs and overrides, and processes require manual intervention. Enhancement requests pile up with no clear path forward. The instinct is to fix the configuration, and sometimes that's exactly right.

But configuration work that doesn't address underlying structure becomes a recurring cost. Organizations fix the same types of issues repeatedly, not because the fixes are wrong, but because the root cause is something configuration can't touch. The financial impact grows over time. Organizations that treat every problem as configuration often spend 20-30% of their ongoing Workday budget on fixes that don't last because the root cause is structural. That's budget consumed without building lasting capability.

Research consistently supports this pattern. A systematic literature review published in Cogent Business & Management found that among critical success factors for ERP post-implementation, organizational factors exert a more pronounced influence than technical aspects. The technology matters, but how the organization operates around it matters more.

What Configuration Problems Look Like

Configuration problems are technical issues with the system itself. They're bounded, identifiable, and fixable.

Common examples include:

• Reports that don't produce accurate data due to incorrect logic or field mapping

• Workday business processes that don't match how work actually flows

• Security roles that are too broad or too restrictive

• Integrations that fail or produce errors between Workday and other systems

• Features that weren't configured during implementation and now need to be added

The key characteristic of configuration problems is that they have identifiable fixes. Once resolved correctly, they stay resolved. If the same issue keeps coming back, or if fixing one thing creates problems elsewhere, that's a signal something deeper may be at play.

What Operating Model Problems Look Like

Operating model problems aren't about how the system is configured. They're about how the organization operates around the system, mainly through governance and alignment.

Workday Governance and Support:

• Unclear platform ownership: while HR owns HCM, Finance owns Financials, and IT owns integrations, who owns the platform as a whole? Who makes decisions that span modules or require cross-functional trade-offs? Without platform-level ownership, decisions stall or get made in silos that create downstream conflicts.

• Integration ownership unclear: IT owns the technical integrations, but who owns the business rules that govern what data flows where? When integration failures happen, finger-pointing between IT, HR, and Finance delays resolution. Integration health is a platform concern, not just a technical one.

• No forum for cross-functional decisions: Changes that affect multiple modules require alignment that never comes because there's no mechanism to surface trade-offs and make calls.

• No vision or defined outcomes for the platform: The organization hasn't clarified what Workday is supposed to do or how success will be measured. Without shared vision, every decision becomes a negotiation.

Organizational Alignment

• HR, Finance, and IT operating with competing priorities: Each function optimizes for its own needs, creating conflicts that surface in Workday but originate in organizational structure.

• Operating model gaps undermining HR strategy: When the system can't deliver reliable data, workforce planning becomes guesswork. When adoption is low, employee experience suffers and HR loses credibility as a strategic partner. The operating model either enables HR to deliver on its priorities or gets in the way.

• Finance-specific impacts going unaddressed: Journal entry errors, reconciliation delays, and audit findings tied to data inconsistency often trace back to operating model gaps rather than configuration. When Finance owns Financials but doesn't have a seat at platform-level decisions, these issues persist.

• Data governance gaps: No clear accountability for data quality. Everyone assumes someone else is responsible.

• Adoption problems masquerading as system problems: Users log in but work around the system. Workarounds become standard practice. Data quality suffers because of how people use the system, not how it's configured.

The key characteristic of operating model problems is that they're unbounded. Fixing configuration without addressing structure means the problems return.

How to Diagnose Which Problem You Have

The Workday team often sees these patterns first. They're closest to the tickets, the workarounds, and the recurring issues. Their insight is critical to accurate diagnosis.

Questions to ask:

• If we fixed this configuration, would the problem stay solved?

• Does this issue stem from how the system is set up, or from how decisions get made around it?

• Are we seeing similar patterns across different functional areas?

• Do we have clarity on who owns this decision, this process, this data?

• Have we fixed this before, and did it come back?

Signals pointing to configuration: Isolated issue, clear technical fix, single owner can resolve, hasn't been addressed before.

Signals pointing to operating model: Recurring issues, fixes don't stick, multiple stakeholders with no resolution path, same root cause generating different symptoms.

Meeting the Organization Where It Is

Not every organization is ready for operating model work. Some need to demonstrate value through targeted wins before leadership will invest in structural change. Others have already seen enough evidence and are ready to address the operating model directly.

Starting small: Using optimization to build the business case

Some organizations need to earn the right to do broader work. Leadership may not yet recognize that structural issues exist, or sponsorship for operating model work may not be available.

Targeted Workday configuration fixes that deliver visible wins create credibility. A report that finally works. A process that no longer requires workarounds. An integration that runs without manual cleanup. This path has lower upfront cost but longer time to value.

At the same time, the Workday team can build evidence that points to structural causes and begin advocating for change. This means documenting patterns: tracking recurring issues and their root causes, quantifying time spent on rework, cataloging decisions that stalled because no one had authority to make them, and identifying where module boundaries create cross-functional gaps. This evidence, presented in terms leadership understands (cost, risk, time), becomes the business case for operating model work. The Workday team isn't just gathering data for others to act on; they're often the ones who see most clearly what needs to change and can drive the conversation forward.

Different leaders need different framings. CHROs respond to workforce impact and HR credibility. CFOs respond to cost, risk, and ROI. CIOs respond to platform stability and technical debt. The same evidence, presented through the right lens, lands differently with each audience.

Ready to go strategic

Some organizations have already seen enough. They've fixed configuration issues repeatedly and watched them come back. Leadership understands that the problems are structural.

For these organizations, starting with operating model work prevents wasted effort. This path requires more upfront investment but typically delivers faster, more durable results. Organizations that have already spent years on configuration work that didn't stick often find the total cost of operating model work is lower than continuing to pay for recurring fixes.

How to know which path fits:

• Is leadership aware that structural issues exist, or do they believe it's all configuration?

• Is there budget and sponsorship for operating model work, or does the case need to be built?

• Does the CIO have a strategic seat at the table, or is IT viewed primarily as an implementer? If the latter, the Workday team and CIO may need to build the case together.

• Has optimization work been tried before without lasting results?

Sometimes leadership doesn't act, even with clear evidence. This is frustrating but common. When that happens, the Workday team's job is to keep the evidence current, continue delivering value through configuration work, and resurface the structural conversation when circumstances change: a new leader, a visible failure, or a strategic initiative that exposes the gaps. Persistence matters.

What Rethinking the Operating Model Involves

 Workday Governance and Support

• Clarifying platform ownership and decision rights: Module ownership is necessary but not sufficient. Someone needs to own the platform as a whole, with authority to make cross-functional decisions.

• Defining vision and outcomes: What is Workday supposed to do for the organization? How will success be measured?

• Establishing forums for cross-functional decisions: A regular mechanism to surface trade-offs and make calls prevents decisions from stalling.

• Aligning support model to actual needs: Whether internal, AMS, embedded, or hybrid, the model needs to fit the environment.

Organizational Alignment

• Aligning functional leaders on Workday's role: If HR, Finance, and IT have different expectations, configuration decisions become battlegrounds.

• Defining process ownership across boundaries: Someone needs to own cross-functional outcomes end-to-end.

• Establishing data governance: Clear accountability for data quality and issue resolution.

• Addressing adoption, not just usage: If users are working around the system, that requires attention to training, process fit, and feedback loops.

Operating model work is organizational change, and it requires the same attention to stakeholder alignment, communication, and sequencing that any significant change effort demands. The Workday team often identifies the need, but sponsorship typically comes from HR, Finance, or IT leadership depending on where the pain is most visible. Success requires a coalition, not a single owner.

Moving Forward

Not every Workday challenge is a configuration problem, and not every organization is ready for operating model work. The path forward depends on accurate diagnosis and honest assessment of organizational readiness. Some organizations need to start with optimization, delivering visible wins while the Workday team builds evidence for structural change. Others are ready to address the operating model directly. Most will do some combination of both. The key is knowing which problem you're solving and building a path forward that fits where the organization actually is.

We help organizations diagnose whether their Workday challenges are configuration, structural, or both, and build an approach that addresses the real root causes.

Reach out to us at info@abnormallogic.com to start the conversation.