|
Scheduling Considerations |
Shift
Schedule Design | |
|
Scheduling
Considerations | ||
|
There are five points to keep in mind when searching for a new work schedule:
Interesting stuff, but are these schedule patterns really the best choice for the organization? Do they make efficient use of personnel? Do they provide consistent coverage that matches the workload? Moreover, would they be feasible anywhere else? No one ever mentions coverage, staffing requirements, or average hours of work. Just because someone likes the pattern doesn't necessarily mean it's a good schedule. A good schedule first must meet the
organization's requirements and constraints (staff size, budget, union
contracts, etc.) Once those are satisfied, the best schedule is the one
preferred by a majority of the employees. Both perspectives deserve
consideration, though the organization's requirements always come first.
What's the point of searching for a 10-hour shift schedule if the
organization doesn't have enough staff to adopt that kind of schedule?
Why debate 4-on-2-off schedules vs. 6-on-3-off schedules if neither
would provide sufficient or consistent coverage?
Your Group Is Unique “We are looking a schedule for 8 dispatchers that work 8-hour rotating shifts. The schedule would have to be a 24/7 schedule and I would like to see about rotating days off. Thanks in advance for any help.” “I would love a copy of your schedule too.” “Would any of you guy's mind emailing some 10-hour examples for 24/7 coverage?” Even though these people are in the same industry and may have the same number of employees, there are other considerations equally important to the schedule selection: 1. Workload and coverage requirements. 2. Absence rates. 3. Employee preferences. 4. Other requirements. Workload and coverage requirements. Suppose there are three organizations with 12 employees. Organization A is busiest in the daytime. They would like 4 people working on days, 3 on afternoons and 2 on nights. This calls for a completely different schedule than Organization B, which has a level workload and needs 3 people working at all times. Organization C needs more personnel on weekdays and minimal staff on the weekends. There is no way these organizations could use each other’s schedules. Absence rates. Suppose that Organizations A and B have similar workload distributions, but Organization A has a higher absence rate due to the tenure of the employees and their generous vacation and paid-time-off policies. They need to use two of their 12 employees just to fill in for absences. That means they only have 10 people to provide the daily coverage. Organization B has a low absence rate, so it can devote all 12 employees to its coverage requirements. Once again, the same schedule would not work for both groups, even though they have the same number of employees. Employee preferences. Organizations A, B and C have 12 employees, similar coverage requirements, and similar absence rates. Employees in Organization A prefer to work longer shifts in order to get more days off each week. Employees in Organization B are older and refuse to work anything but 8-hour shifts. Employees in Organization C also want 8-hour shifts, but unlike Organization B, they are willing to work 7 days in a row in order to maximize weekends off. All three groups will need different schedules. Other requirements. Organization A requires employees to have one week of training every quarter. To accomplish this, they have built this training week into their work schedule. Organization B wants to maintain balanced work crews. If they offered fixed shifts they would have all the senior, most experienced personnel on the day shift. So they are unable to offer a fixed shift schedule. Organization C has been hit with severe budget cuts, forcing it to eliminate all overtime from their schedule. All three groups will need different schedules. As you
can see, you can’t adopt another organization’s schedule just because it
has the same number of employees. Even in the same industry, there are
other factors that must be taken into account. Schedule Changes May Require Tradeoffs Shift schedules involve tradeoffs. When you try to improve one aspect of the schedule, you sometimes have to give something up. Three common examples are:
1. More days off. 2. More weekends off. 3. Longer breaks (consecutive days off).
More
days off. To get more days off
each week, you have to work longer shifts. Although people hate the idea
of working 12-hour shifts, they love the extra days off. Roughly 75% of
all shiftworkers are willing to make this tradeoff. Many employees would
love to work 10-hour shifts. But to get them means reducing the coverage
(or hiring more staff). This is a tradeoff that few organizations can
afford to make. |
Longer breaks (consecutive days off). Another common tradeoff involves working more days in a row in order to get longer breaks (days off). With 8-hour shift schedules, for example, working 7 days in a row can give you a 4-day weekend off every month. In addition to working more consecutive days, they also have to sacrifice the other breaks, some of which become one-day breaks instead of two-day breaks.
Almost any
schedule change will require a tradeoff of some sort. The tradeoff may
pit employers against employees or one group of employees against
another. Individual employees often focus on the benefits of the change,
while managers are put in the position of explaining or justifying the
sacrifices associated with the change. 1. Coverage requirements. 2. Resources. 3. Shift length. 4. Fixed shifts or rotating shifts. 5. Schedule features.
Coverage requirements. The fundamental purpose of the schedule is to align the employees with the workload. Coverage requirements are the number of people needed to handle the workload. If the workload is fairly constant during the hours of operation, the coverage requirements will be the same on every shift. If the workload varies by time of day, the coverage requirements will be higher on the busier shifts. If the workload is heavier on weekdays, the coverage requirements will be higher during that part of the week. Coverage requirements are the foundation of all shift schedules.
Resources. Your available resources consist of employees and the hours they work each week. Many 24/7 schedules are designed around people working an average of 42 hours a week, simply because this fits with four crews (4 crews * 42 hours/week = 168 hours/week, which also equals 24 hours/day * 7 days/week = 168 hours/week). If your organization limits the work to 40 hours a week, it will take more employees to provide the desired coverage levels. You may need extra resources to cover absences such as vacations, illness, training, etc. If you don’t have enough resources, you will have to reduce the coverage. For more information on coverage requirements and resources, please follow this link… Shift
length. The next consideration
is shift length. Changing the shift length may affect the coverage and
staffing requirements. For example, let's say you currently schedule 2
people to work the 8-hour day shift and 3 people to work the 8-hour
afternoon shift. If you change to 12-hour shifts, how much coverage do
you need for this longer shift: 2 or 3 people? If you choose 3, this
probably will take more employees than your current schedule. Fixed shifts vs. rotating shifts. The use of fixed shifts with either 8-hour or 10-hour shifts may increase the staffing requirements. Although 95% of employees prefer fixed shifts, employers face several challenges with them. For more information on this topic, please follow this link… Schedule features. Many people change schedules to improve worker satisfaction. They may want to increase the number of full weekends off, or reduce the number of days worked in a row, or increase the number of consecutive days off. Changing schedule features typically involves tradeoffs. To get more weekends off, for example, you either have to work longer shifts or more days in a row. To increase the number of consecutive days off, generally you have to work more days in a row.
Implementation Is the Most Difficult Step Finding a new schedule is often the easiest step. Gaining agreement and support from everyone who has to work the schedule is often much more difficult. Changing work schedules is an easy way to alienate the workforce and increase turnover. To ensure widespread support for the change, you need to have a plan for involving the key stakeholders and keeping them informed through the entire change process.
This sounds simple enough, but it’s not.
People tend to be resistant to any kind of change. When it comes to work
schedules, even a minor change can make a significant difference in
employees’ lives. For example, changing the time that work starts by 15
minutes may seem trivial, but it can have serious repercussions for
people who commute in a carpool or use If your organization has more than 30 employees, we recommend using an outside expert to manage the change process. Even though managers think they can handle the change without help, this is rarely the case. Reasons include: 1. Few managers have the time to devote to this. Other "hot" issues often come up that delay or sidetrack the process. 2. Employee morale and productivity may suffer. Employees may spend an inordinate amount of time talking about how management is "out to get them." 3. Solutions may be sub-optimal because employees are not well informed or educated about their options or the consequences of their choices. 4. Vocal individuals, rather than the majority, may influence the outcome. Some stakeholders may feel "left out" of the process or that their opinions were ignored. 5. The organization may end up with an ineffective solution that they live with for years to come. For example, misjudging the number of employees needed at a site can be expensive. If an employee earns $15/hour, having only one too many can cost the organization an unnecessary $40K a year in wages and benefits. Paying for unnecessary overtime or idle time can be equally expensive. Buying new equipment or facilities is far more costly than finding a schedule that maximizes the utilization of existing assets. 6. Permanently damaging the relationship with the workforce can have long-lasting repercussions. Employee turnover may increase. Absenteeism also may rise as a result of disgruntled workers. 7. Having an inappropriate policy that doesn’t match the new schedule can be costly. We have seen organizations that failed to change their policies when they changed schedules that reverted to their old schedule once they realized that vacation and holiday pay had increased by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
| |
