Question:

Looking for help!  We continue to challenge ourselves on improving occupancy and schedule efficiency while providing exceptional service to our customers.  We’re currently being challenged on our schedule efficiency results, leading to the following questions:

1. For schedule efficiency, is there an industry standard on how it should be calculated?
   
   
2. We’re trying to determine how to calculate what our optimal efficiencies should be based on the size of the answering group, hours of operation, etc.  Any recommendations?  Again, is there an industry standard calculation for determining target schedule efficiency?
   
   
3. Any benchmark data we can access to determine how we’re performing?

Additionally, our schedule efficiency results vary greatly depending on the size of the group.  For instance, for our largest group, which is open 24 x 7, we’re able to run 91% occupancy with a 91-92% efficiency.  Smaller groups where we leverage the staff across multiple call types, we range from 70%-90%.

Answer:

There are several different ways to calculate schedule efficiency. For example, in a previous company, we measured schedule efficiency with the following calculation:

Total scheduled staff / Sum(total required
+ approved off phone (shrinkage such as training,
etc. that fell into our ‘pre-approved’ category
for exceptions) + forecasted unplanned absence

The absolute value of the each half hour was weighted based on the % of staff each half hour represented of the total staff hours for the day. The sum of the half-hours equaled schedule efficiency - with a max possible number of 100%.  

This metric measured the planning side of scheduling more so than just actual schedules because it factored in our ability to forecast and apply approved time off against staff levels as well as our ability to forecast the absenteeism impact. 

However, there are various ways to calculate schedule efficiency, and there is not necessarily one calculation that is better than another. Just pick one and stick with it for consistency.

When you ask about “optimal efficiencies” there is no “industry standard.” It’s not a case where you get to a magic number and you’re done. The way to think about this is to benchmark where you are now and what the impact of the inefficiency is costing you. Then set incremental goals for improving it, along with a step-by-step plan for making small changes to steadily improve the efficiency and match.

In terms of “industry standards,” there are various groups that do surveys and then publish findings as if they were standards. First, much of the surveying process is inconsistent in terms of survey creation, sampling, administration, and analysis. Many of the results are nonsense. But even if the surveys were 100% valid and reliable, just because the “average” number was x% doesn’t mean that you should use that as a standard against which to measure your own operation. The average may be 92% and you’re at 94%.

Does that mean you should stop trying to improve?

Your calculations of better efficiency in the larger groups are to be expected. With higher volumes of calls and bigger sizes, the calls tend to smooth themselves out a bit and there are more possibilities for a variety of schedules, so schedule fit should be better than in smaller groups. Occupancy will also by definition be higher since larger call handling groups are more efficient. Your numbers are not surprising here, and it sounds like you are doing a pretty good job already.

So do you have thoughts about industry standards? I’d love to hear from you! Send me an e-mail at vicki.herrell@swpp.org.