ADP, delivered with multi-platform fluency that spans the full ADP product line.

Lyric is built for clients whose operational complexity warrants a modern HCM architecture rather than the configuration-extensions-on-configuration pattern that defines mature Workforce Now deployments. New ADP customers — both mid-market and enterprise — are landing on Lyric more frequently than on Workforce Now Next Gen. For existing Workforce Now customers, the migration question becomes operational rather than hypothetical: when does Lyric's architecture warrant the transition cost, and when does staying on classic remain the right call?

The fit decision turns on operational complexity, planned investment horizon, integration footprint, and how much classic Workforce Now configuration the client has built up over years. The honest answer for most existing customers running classic WFN today is "not yet" — the operational case for Lyric has to be concrete. For new deals, Lyric is increasingly the default starting point unless specific Workforce Now capabilities drive the decision the other way.

Lyric implementations price similarly to Workforce Now implementations though with adjusted scope reflecting the architectural differences. Configuration carries forward differently between classic WFN and Lyric — most patterns translate, some don't, and the migration path involves parallel running, configuration mapping, integration testing, and cutover planning. RJR works both new Lyric implementations and Workforce Now-to-Lyric migrations.

Hypercare on Lyric implementations runs the same shape as other ADP work — two payrolls standard, with extension to four for complex multi-EIN deployments. Same firm carries forward into managed services if the client wants continuity past hypercare.

Lyric's integration architecture differs from classic Workforce Now's in ways that affect how RJR designs cross-platform integrations. UKG Pro WFM running alongside Lyric, Salesforce-driven incentive compensation feeding Lyric for pay execution, ERP integration into Lyric for cost accounting — each requires design decisions that don't translate one-to-one from prior Workforce Now patterns. RJR's integration depth on the broader ADP product family carries forward; the specific implementation patterns adapt to Lyric's architecture.

For clients evaluating Lyric, the conversation isn't usually "Lyric or Workforce Now" in isolation — it's "Lyric or Workforce Now or stay on what we have, and what does that decision look like over the next five years?" RJR's positioning is operational fit, not vendor preference. The fit decision turns on real complexity, real timing, real existing investment. We advise on which path fits before implementation starts and deliver the implementation work when the decision lands.

Most ADP engagements split across two partners — one firm to implement, a different firm to run it after go-live. The handoff is where things go sideways. Configuration choices made during implementation come back as operational pain three months later, and the implementer is gone. RJR works the full cycle. We implement ADP Workforce Now from scratch when that's the engagement, we operate it post-go-live when that's the engagement, and we do both when continuity is the point. The same team that configured the tenant is the team running it the next year, which means configuration decisions reflect how the system will actually be used rather than how it looks during a clean implementation.

ADP Workforce Now does not run alone. RJR builds and maintains integrations between ADP and the systems around it: finance and ERP for general ledger feeds and payroll posting, benefits carriers for eligibility and enrollment data, time and attendance systems where ADP is not the primary timekeeping platform, talent acquisition tools, learning platforms, identity providers, and data warehouses. We work in ADP's native integration tools, in the ADP Marketplace ecosystem, in Boomi, and in custom API patterns where standard connectors do not fit. One client runs 15+ integrations under our managed care as a global digital identity and payments provider, with the integration layer staying invisible to their internal team. The integration work is where ADP-running organizations most often need outside help, and where our depth concentrates.

Many ADP engagements come to us as inheritance, not implementation. The tenant exists, someone configured it, and now it is producing problems that nobody on the current team fully understands. The first work is diagnostic. We map what the prior configuration was actually trying to do, what is functioning correctly, what is producing the visible symptoms, and what is quietly broken in ways that will surface at year-end or open enrollment. We propose a path that respects the choices already made where they are sound and corrects them where they are blocking progress. Stabilization engagements often expand into longer managed-service relationships once the immediate fires are handled.

ADP handles complex payroll, but the configuration patterns differ from other platforms and require depth specific to ADP. RJR has run multi-state payroll across ADP tenants, multi-EIN structures with separate company codes and consolidated reporting, certified payroll for public sector and construction-adjacent contexts, prevailing wage requirements with rate determinations that change by job classification and locality, and multi-union shops with overlapping bargaining agreements and dues structures. The work is in mapping the client's actual rules into ADP's configuration model without leaving gaps that surface at year-end or audit. Configuration patterns are well understood for our team. The tactical depth comes from doing the work repeatedly, not from product training.

Some ADP engagements are not full managed services or net-new implementations. They are RJR working as a fractional resource: embedded into an internal team that has gaps, providing payroll-cycle backup during a leave or a vacancy, or working alongside a separate implementation partner where RJR handles a specific domain like integrations or complex payroll while the other partner handles core configuration. The engagement shape sizes to the actual need rather than to a standard contract template. Fractional arrangements work well for organizations that have most of what they need internally and a specific gap that does not justify a full managed-service relationship.