Going live with your HCM is often seen as the finish line. In reality, it is only the start. The implementation may be complete, but after go live the real work begins. Users start working with the system every day, new business requirements come in, releases continue, and internal teams suddenly realise how much ownership and expertise is needed to keep everything running smoothly.
According to Steven Thangathurai, former AMS Manager at SuccessDay, this is exactly where many organisations underestimate what AMS is really supposed to do. Many companies approach AMS as a way to buy extra capacity or missing knowledge. But if you only see it as support, you are missing the bigger picture.
AMS is not just support
One of the biggest misconceptions around AMS is that it starts after implementation to simply “keep the lights on”. In practice, managing a Workday environment requires ongoing decisions around ownership, optimisation, governance, user adoption, and internal capabilities. Especially for organisations that are newly live, that transition can be difficult.
“The implementation is not the end. That is when the real lifecycle of the system actually starts.”
“You cannot stay in project mode forever,” Steven explains. “At some point, the implementation team scales down and organisations need to figure out what they can realistically manage internally and where they need external support.”
That is often where challenges start. Users start working with the system every day, new business requirements come in, releases continue, and internal teams suddenly realise how important it is to have the right support structure, ownership, and expertise in place to continuously evolve the system over time. HR leaders are usually very focused on the transformation itself, but less familiar with what it takes to manage and evolve an HRIT system over time.
Where AMS partnerships often go wrong
According to Steven, AMS partnerships rarely fail because of one major issue. More often, things slowly become misaligned over time. Sometimes expectations are unclear from the beginning. In other situations, organisations simply underestimate how much involvement is still needed internally.
Some organisations initially expect that an AMS partner can take over most responsibilities. In reality, the strongest setups are usually built around collaboration between internal teams and the AMS partner.
Another common issue is choosing a partner based purely on cost. “You can absolutely choose a lower-cost setup,” Steven says. “But organisations also need to understand the trade-offs that come with that. If quality, ownership, and communication are not managed properly, it will eventually impact the business.”
At the same time, he also sees organisations trying to take on highly complex work internally before they are ready. Sometimes expectations are simply not realistic from the beginning. That is where a good AMS partner should also challenge the customer honestly.
The problem with black box AMS
One of Steven’s biggest frustrations with traditional AMS models is the lack of context and ownership. A lot of AMS services are still built around ticketing systems, SLA dashboards, and volume handling. Tickets get processed quickly, response times look good, but customers still feel like they are not actually moving forward.
“You can have a completely green SLA dashboard while the customer is still unhappy.”
In many traditional setups, customers repeatedly explain their business context to different consultants who do not know the organisation, the roadmap, or previous decisions. There is no continuity. No real relationship. No understanding of the bigger picture.
According to Steven, AMS should never feel transactional. “It should feel like an extension of your own team.”
Another issue is the lack of knowledge transfer. Instead of helping organisations become stronger internally, some AMS models unintentionally create dependency. “Customers remain dependent instead of becoming stronger themselves.”
The organisations that get the most value out of AMS
The companies that benefit most from AMS usually approach it differently. They understand that AMS is not just operational support. It is a partnership that requires involvement from both sides.
The most successful organisations tend to:
- Clearly define what stays in-house and what is outsourced
- Involve IT and the business alongside HR
- Share their roadmap and long-term goals
- Invest time into the relationship with their AMS partner
- Stay realistic about internal capacity and expectations
Steven often advises organisations to work with a hybrid model. Depending on the maturity and experience of the internal Workday team, organisations can decide which responsibilities stay in-house and which are outsourced to an AMS partner.
“Repetitive and less complex activities can often be managed internally,” he explains. “But highly specialised topics or activities that only happen once a year are usually more effective to place with an AMS partner. At the same time, organisations with highly experienced internal Workday teams may decide to outsource more operational or repetitive activities instead. The key is having clear agreements on what stays in-house and what is outsourced.”
That balance is important because it allows internal teams to focus on the right priorities while still having access to specialised when needed. If you do not invest time into the relationship yourself, you also cannot expect maximum value from the partnership.
What SuccessDay does differently
SuccessDay’s AMS approach was shaped by earlier experiences with more traditional AMS providers.
“We experienced ourselves what it feels like to receive support that technically meets the SLA but still does not help you move forward as an organisation,” Steven says.
That experience became the foundation for a different way of working. Instead of anonymous ticket handling and constantly changing consultants, SuccessDay focuses on continuity, transparency, and long-term partnership.
Every customer works with a dedicated AMS Lead who understands the organisation, the internal stakeholders, and the roadmap. The focus is not only on solving incoming issues, but also on proactively identifyingopportunities to improve.
“We do not just wait for tickets. We actively look at where customers can improve and where we can add value.”
That also means being transparent about quality, communication, and costs. SuccessDay works with actual rates instead of blended pricing, meaning customers only pay senior rates when senior expertise is actually needed. Simpler tasks are handled by more junior consultants where appropriate and paying a junior rate of course.
“It is about being fair and transparent,” Steven says. “And making sure customers get the right expertise for the right type of work.”
The team also places a strong focus on measuring actual customer experience instead of only operational metrics. Through a dedicated Quality Assurance approach, SuccessDay continuously gathers feedback from customers on both service quality and collaboration. That experience is also measured through the XLA methodology, allowing the team to look beyond traditional SLA reporting.
In 2025, this approach resulted in a customer satisfaction score of 8.3 out of 10, an overall client experience score of 7.9 out of 10, and a Net Promoter Score (NPS) of 40, a strong benchmark within the industry.
It is not about response times. It is about whether customers genuinely feel supported and whether the partnership helps them move forward. Read more about how we do our AMS here.

When should organizations reconsider their AMS setup?
Not every difficult AMS relationship immediately means a partner should be replaced. According to Steven, the first step should always be an honest conversation around expectations, priorities, and objectives.
“You should clearly explain what is not working, what your goals are, and where you expect improvement,” he says. “A good partner should be open to that discussion.”
At the same time, there are clear warning signs organisations should not ignore:
- Constant frustration despite positive SLA reporting
- Limited proactive support
- Unexplainable consultant turnover
- Poor understanding of the business context
- Lack of progress towards business goals
“When your AMS setup stops contributing to your objectives, that is usually the moment to reassess whether the partnership is still the right fit.”
The most important question organisations should ask
When selecting an AMS partner, organisations often focus on pricing, response times, or technical capabilities. But according to Steven, there is one much more important question that is often overlooked:
“How is this partner actually going to help us move forward?”
Because in the end, AMS is not just about maintaining a system. It is about helping organisations continuously improve the way they work with it.
More information about AMS?
Feel free to reach out, we are looking forward to telling you more!
