Question:
I want to introduce the concept of schedule inflexibility to my organization. Can you give me some specifics about this metric and how it should be used? Thanks!
Answer:
Schedule inflexibility or inefficiency is a measure of how well the schedule or actual staffing matches the requirements based on the speed of answer goal. Overstaffing is equally inefficient as understaffing, so both are counted. For example, where there are strict scheduling rules, all full-time staff, required days off together, or other constraints, it is difficult to schedule the exact number of staff needed in every time period. In very flexible operations with many part-time personnel and few scheduling rules, it can be much lower but is still a factor to consider in hiring plans.
To calculate it, count all the staff over the required number and all the staff under the required number in each time period. Add them all together and divide by the total staffing required across all time periods in the study. This gives you a percentage of inefficiency. It is typically calculated for the day or week, although there may be periods that are often significantly off and it is useful to note these as opportunities for improvement. Many of the commercial WFM software systems calculate and report this statistic but be sure to check the math it uses to be sure it matches your expectations and ensure that multiple systems all calculate it the same way.
Generally, schedule inflexibility is used for planning headcount and must be added to the required staffing along with the shrinkage loss. However, it can be used to track actual results if desired. The math is essentially the same and uses plus or minus Average Positions Staffed as the base along with the calculation of actual required staff based on the actual volume and AHT rather than the forecast workload.
Like other goals in the contact center, a perfect score is highly unlikely. Some operations will struggle to achieve better than 10-15% loss, while others can easily achieve 5-7%. It is best to measure where the operation is at the starting point and set a goal for a small improvement. When that is achieved, set the next goal. Try to be realistic given the constraints. For example, a union shop with many fixed schedules cannot be expected to achieve the result found in a largely part-time staff operation. The idea is to see where the challenges are and try to figure out ways to achieve more flexibility. Perhaps more choices of lunch length or break placements would improve the match. Schedules that allow for more hours worked on the busiest days and fewer on slow days even with full-time people can be helpful. Knowing where in the days and weeks the biggest mismatches occur consistently can be the key to finding creative solutions.
There is some element of the result that may be driven by the work done by the WFM team. Utilizing all the options available can certainly help. However, much of the opportunity for improvement is in the rules and even culture of the organization. “We’ve always done it this way” can be a significant limiting factor. It is the role of WFM, in my opinion, to identify the biggest challenges that cause the mismatches and develop options that could be used to improve the results. Presenting those options to management for support in changing the rules is often the most effective way to achieve the improvements needed.
