INTIntegrations & Data

Headcount drift between core HR and the BI warehouse — 30-40 heads every month

Finance and HR argue about headcount every month because the number in the BI warehouse is 30-40 off from the core HR system. The warehouse loads from a nightly extract. When I reconcile, the drift is always a mix of: employees on unpaid leave, employees pending a future-dated termination, and a few contingent workers. Everyone counts these differently. Before I go define 'headcount' for the fourth time — is there a standard the GCC crowd actually agrees on?

3 replies

Karim Haddadyesterday
There's no universal standard, but the pattern that ends the argument: publish three numbers, not one. Active headcount (paid + on paid leave), total workforce (adds unpaid leave + notice period), and FTE. Finance picks which one they budget against and you stop reconciling to a moving target.
Deepa Nairyesterday
And put future-dated terminations in their own bucket until the date passes. The warehouse extract should snapshot as-of the run date and ignore anything effective in the future, otherwise the number changes retroactively when you look at last month.
Tomás Ferreirayesterday
Three numbers + as-of-date snapshots. Writing the definition doc now and getting Finance to sign the 'which number' line. Thanks.

Members answer here — the people who actually run these systems.

Request to join