When covering 24/7 with 10-hour shifts, most people think it takes three shifts since you would simply be replacing the three 8-hour shifts. The problem with three 10-hour shifts is that you are really covering 30/7 which can increase the staffing requirements by 25% or more.

For example, suppose you need 2-person coverage on every shift. With 8-hour fixed shifts, this would require 9 employees (3 per shift). With 10-hour fixed shifts, it would take 12 employees (4 on each shift). This is a 33% increase in the staffing, making it unaffordable for most organizations.

This is not the case for all situations, however. Let's say you needed 2 people on the day and afternoon shifts and only 1 person on the night shift. WIth 8-hour fixed shifts, this would require 8 employees. With three 10-hour fixed shifts, this would require 10 employees. But if you used FOUR 10-hour shifts, it would only require 8 employees. Here's one way to match that.

Assign 2 people to each of the following four 10-hour shifts.

This would produce 2-person coverage from 6 am to 10 pm and 1-person coverage from 10 pm to 6 am. With 2 people on each shift, there would be one day every week in which both people are scheduled to work (since everyone is working 4 shifts or 40 hours per week). This would give you 4-person coverage from 6a to 10p and 2-person coverage from 10p to 6a on that one day every week. You could use this extra coverage for group meetings, training or other purposes.

This approach only works if the coverage for 16 hours a day is double the coverage for the remaining 8 hours. So it would work if you needed 2-person/1-person, 4-person/2-person, 6-person/3-person, 8-person/4-person and so on.

If you want to get really complicated, you could boost the coverage on one shift. This would give you extra coverage for that 10-hour period. For instance, you could assign 4 people to the afternoon shift. This would give you 2-person coverage from 6a to 12p, 3-person coverage from 12p to 10p, and 1-person coverage from 10p to 6a.

Obviously, this can get really complicated. If you are dead-set on adopting 10-hour shifts, why not contact us for help. Get started by filling out this form:

Contact Us

As a general rule employees prefer fixed shifts and employers prefer rotating shifts. You can read more about the pros and cons of each approach here:  Fixed Shifts vs. Rotating Shifts.

WIth fixed shifts, you can adopt a schedule that has fixed days of work or rotating days of work. A fixed-fixed schedule means you work the same days every week on the same shift. A fixed-rotating schedule means you always work the same shift, but the days change from week-to-week, usually following a set pattern.

Employees like the predictability of a fixed-fixed schedule. It's easy to plan the rest of your life around it. Surveys of shiftworkers found that predictability is the most important schedule feature, higher than weekends off, coverage for vacations, ability to get overtime, maximum time off, and others. You can read more about this here:  Schedule Predictability.

Fixed day schedules are frequently used in police departments and companies that operate less than 24/7, especially those that have a lot of part-time employees. With police, the officers bid on both the shift and the set of days worked. This is usually done once a year. They do this to reward seniority, since the most senior officers get the "best" schedules.

I've run into a number of medical facilities that create a new schedule every week. The most senior people have a fixed set of days they work. The scheduler then contacts everyone else to fill in the gaps. This is the absolute worst way to schedule. Not only is it a lot of work for the scheduler, but the junior employees never know when they will be working until just before the week begins.

With companies using part-time employees, fixed days makes it easier to find and schedule the part-time workers. They can work around their school schedules or other part-time jobs. They are often forced to build the entire schedule around the availability of a few key, part-time people.

The biggest problem with schedules using fixed days of work is that the employees are not treated the equally. Some people get both the shift they prefer AND every weekend off. Others (usually the newest, least-senior folks) get the worst shift and have to work every weekend. Double ouch! You can read more about this here:  Fairness.

Most of the schedules I design feature rotating days of work. The schedule follows a multi-week pattern. If you look at the 24/7 schedules examples that I sell (Schedule Examples), you'll find various options with 8 or 12-hour shifts that follow a pattern that lasts anywhere from 2 weeks to 20 weeks. When I custom design schedules, I usually match the length of the pattern to the number of employees on a shift. For example, if there are 5 people on a shift, I would create a 5-week pattern.

With rotating days of work, every employee on a shift is treated exactly the same. For example, with 5 people on an 8-hour shift, all 5 will get the same number of weekends off (maybe 1 or 2 weekends off every 5 weeks). They are all working the same pattern. It's just that they are in different weeks of that 5-week pattern. You are still rewarding seniority by allowing the most senior employees to bid on the shift they prefer. To me, this is best for everyone.

If you've searched my website for articles about 10-hour shifts, you'll see that I have a pretty negative opinion toward them in 24/7 operations. Here are links to some of those articles:

1. 10-Hour Shifts in 24/7 Operations (shift-schedule-design.com)
    
2. 10-Hour Shifts for 24/7 Coverage (shift-schedule-design.com)
    
3. 10-Hour Shift Schedules and Police Management (shift-schedule-design.com)
    
4. 10-Hour Shift Schedules for Police Officers (shift-schedule-design.com)

Most of the issues I raise are management concerns, like the fact that 10-hour shifts require at least 25% more staff than 8 or 12-hour shifts. Nevertheless, employees tend to believe that 10-hour shifts are the ideal shift length. They would do anything (maybe including a pay cut) to get them. Since employees love them so much, maybe it's worth the extra cost. After all, wouldn't it be great to have a happy, enthusiastic workforce? 

The table below shows the staff needed to different levels of coverage:

Coverage levels greater than 5 would either be a multiple of one of the levels shown or it would require a custom-designed schedule. For example, 6-person coverage would use a schedule for 3-person coverage, whereas 7-person coverage would require a custom-designed schedule.

With some of these coverage levels, the schedule would have one or two overlapping days. This will produce more coverage than needed. This is necessary to ensure 40-hour work weeks. You can only avoid this by having an occasional 30-hour work week, which few employees would tolerate.

3-person coverage is the only level that would require some overtime in the schedule (a 50-hour work week once every 5 weeks). If you want to avoid the OT, you'd have to employ 6 people per shift or 18 total employees. I don't think it's worth it, but that's your call.

Want to see a few templates for your coverage requirements? You won't find these elsewhere on the Internet. They have to be custom-designed. Please fill out this form to get an idea of what we would provide and how much we would charge:

Contact Us

A lot of managers are reluctant to adopt 12-hour shifts because they think they're too long. Here's what a recent client told me, "I like the idea of a 12-hour shift, but the techs in this department are required to be on their feet all day, so I have concerns about performance and burnout."

This is a legitimate concern. If there were ways to mitigate this, maybe more companies would change to 12s since they really are better for employee work-life balance. I will discuss a few possible approaches to address fatigue with 12-hour shifts.

One approach would be to split the workforce by adopting two work schedules: one with 8-hour shifts and another with 12-hour shifts. This may be difficult to achieve in very small groups, but it's worth a look. And, if the coverage varies from shift-to-shift, it still might work. You may need a scheduling expert (like me) to help you with the schedule design.

Another approach would be to add more breaks, probably more than legally required. For example, if your state requires at least one 15-minute break every 4 hours, you might offer a 10-minute break every 2 hours. 

The most difficult change would be to redesign the job so that employees are not standing or performing the same process all day long. The benefits would not only be less fatigue, but also exposure to other tasks/responsibilities that may improve the employees' overall satisfaction with their jobs.

I've never seen statistics on this but, based on the inquiries for scheduling help I've had over the past 20 years, it appears that a majority of the companies that cover 24/7 use 8-hour fixed shifts. One big reason they never switched to 12-hour shifts was because their workload varied in 8-hour increments. They needed more workers during the daylight shift(s) or, in the case of police, paramedics, and call centers, they needed more workers during the evening hours, especially on Friday and Saturday.

These companies don't realize that it's possible to adopt a schedule with both 8 and 12-hour shifts. You simply create a 12-hour pattern that covers 24/7 and provides the coverage needed on the shift with the lowest workload (usually the night shift). Then you overlay that with one or two 8-hour shifts during the busier times of the day.

Here's an example. Suppose you need 4 people working from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 2 people at all other times. You would adopt a 12-hour schedule that produces 2-person coverage on both shifts and overlay that with a single 8-hour day shift that produces 2-person coverage. The combination produces the exact coverage needed: 4 people from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 2 people from 4 p.m. to 8 a.m.

Here's another example. You need 4 people from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 2 people the rest of the day. You would use a 12-hour schedule with 2-person coverage on both shifts. Then you would overlay that with two 8-hour shifts, each with 2-person coverage. That would give you 4-person coverage during the entire busy period.

Employees don't really like 8-hour schedules. They don't get many days off, they have to work a lot of consecutive shifts, and most importantly they don't get many weekends off. Why not give some of the employees a better schedule using 12-hour shifts. Not everyone will like the 12s, so they can stay on one of the overlay shifts. This seems like a perfect solution. You're not making everyone switch to 12s, and you're offering an option to improve work-life balance for those willing to change.

Why don't you give us call to see how this might work for your organization? We can show you a few different options with all 8-hour shifts as well as a few options with both 8 and 12-hour shifts. Click on this link and fill out the form to get started:  Request Quote

My latest client was a Fire Chief who was facing pressure from city management to change from a 24-hour schedule (48/96) to an 8-hour schedule. I assume that the city officials mistakenly believed that 8-hour schedules don't have any overtime in them. Like many public agencies, they think all overtime is bad and should be eliminated. 

I started by showing the Chief what the current schedule looked like on a spreadsheet. It's a 6-week pattern with 6 teams working an average of 56 hours a week. The only way to get rid of the overtime is to add more staff. Shall I repeat that? The ONLY WAY to get rid of the overtime is by hiring more staff. Not changing the shift length. Not changing the work pattern. MORE EMPLOYEES is the only way.

With his coverage requirements (4 people at all times), the current schedule required 12 employees. By increasing the staff to 16, they could lower the average hours worked to 42 hours/week. It didn't matter whether they used 8-hour, 12-hour, or 24-hour shifts. All three approaches (with the exception of 8-hour fixed shifts, which would require 18 people) would need 16 employees averaging 42 hours a week.

What the city folks should have asked was:

1. Would adding 4 more employees cost less than the current approach (12 employees at 56 hours/week vs. 16 employees at 42 hours/week)?
   
   
2. And, if it is, is it worth disrupting the workforce and causing numerous personnel issues?

Overtime is really a substitute for staffing. In 24/7 operations, a little overtime can save a bundle. In this city's case, the answer is not so clear. However, the belief that changing to a different shift length would eliminate the overtime is not accurate. The only way to lower the overtime would be to hire more staff. 

When managers decide to change their group's work schedule, they often begin by searching the internet for: (1) schedules using a specific shift length such as 10 or 12-hour shifts, or (2) popular work patterns such as 4-on-2-off or the Pitman. Unfortunately, doing this will rarely result in the best choice for their unique situation. Here are a few examples of the pitfalls:

• Picking 10-hour or 12-hour shifts when the workload varies in 8-hour increments.
• Using a schedule with constant coverage when their workload varies from shift-to-shift.
• Selecting a schedule pattern (e.g., 4-on-2-off) that requires 6 people per shift, when they have something else.
• Picking a schedule that requires 18 people when other options only require 16.
• Adopting a schedule that is great for day shift, but terrible for night shift.

I'm sure there are plenty of other possibilities, but you get the idea. Many people forget that the primary purpose of the schedule is to match the coverage with the workload. To achieve that goal, you need to start with the number of people needed at different times of the day throughout the week. In many cases, this will limit which shift lengths are feasible. You can read more about that here (Shift Length Selection (shift-schedule-design.com). 

Once you have the shift length(s) established, you need to find or create a pattern that will produce the desired coverage with minimal resources and with maximum weekends off. There is no way that an internet search will ever help with that. 

What do most people do? They find a schedule or create one that they think looks good, adopt it, and live with a mediocre solution, never aware that other approaches or work patterns would have been far superior. They avoid hiring a scheduling expert to save a few hundred dollars and end up costing the organization more than that every week because they got a solution for free. 

Wouldn't it be better to have someone with scheduing expertise go over your situation, show you alternative approaches (e.g., 8-hour fixed shifts vs. combined 8 and 12-hour fixed shifts), and lay out a few different work patterns for each approach? Since the options would all be in the same format, they would be easy to compare and evaluate. You could show them to your workers and let them debate the pros and cons of each option. This is way scheduling should be done.

Click on this link and fill out the form to get started today: (Request a quote for custom schedule design (shift-schedule-design.com)

Several years ago, I visited the forum at 911Dispatch.Unfortunately, that website has closed as the person who ran it has retired. Too bad because the site had a lot of useful information on it and I would often reply to people on the forum who asked scheduling questions. Here's one of the posts I came across:

"We just hired a 5th dispatcher and I am trying to come up with 10-hour shifts that are agreeable to all. We are currently on 12's, where we get 4 hours OT built in each pay period (two weeks). We work one dispatcher per shift. Our schedule is 2 on, 2 off, 3 on, 2 off, 2 on, 3 off. Does anyone work 10's with just 5 people?"

This woman apparently assumed that 10-hour shifts were a good idea because they would avoid the built-in overtime. The only concern was finding an on-off work pattern using the 10s. She didn't mention other factors that should be considered when making decisions about a new schedule, for example:

1. Workload. I believe that the workload is the most important consideration in the selection of a new schedule. The ideal schedule matches the coverage with the workload. If the workload is fairly constant throughout the day, 10-hour shifts are not a good choice since they overlap for 6 hours a day. Why would she want double coverage for 6 hours a day if it wasn't needed? It might even exceed the number of work stations the group has. If she can use the extra coverage, that's great, but there was no mention of that in her forum posting.

2. Absence rate. If her organization had a high absence rate, she probably should use the 5th employee for relief coverage, not to enable 10-hour shifts.

3. Training. If she needed to build training time into the schedule, I would use the extra capacity for that purpose rather than changing to 10-hour shifts.

4. Cost. Many people think that changing from 12-hour shifts to 10-hour shifts will eliminate overtime. To have 1-person coverage with rotating 10-hour shifts, the organization will need 5 employees working an average of 42 hours a week. The only difference from the 12s is that the 10s require one additional employee. 

5. Employee preferences. Even though most employees say they prefer 10-hour shifts over 12-hour shifts, when they compare the actual schedules for each shift length, roughly 90% will favor the 12-hour schedules. The 12s offer more days off and more weekends off. Also the on-off patterns and crew configurations are easier to understand.

6. Fixed shifts. With the 12-hour shifts, her group could either use fixed or rotating shifts. If they change to 10-hour shifts, the only option is rotating shifts. Fixed 10-hour shifts would require 6 employees for the coverage she wants. And with the fixed 10s, there would be one day of overlap every week. They could end up with 4 people working for the 6 hours that the shifts overlap on the overlapping day of the week.

Many people think that the selection of a new schedule starts by picking the shift length and then finding an on-off pattern that works. They reach out to others in their industry for ideas and suggestions. Unfortunately, this ignores other important considerations that can create a negative work environment (e.g., insufficient coverage during busy periods, mandatory overtime to cover absences, lack of time for training, loss of fixed shifts, and undesirable schedules).

Schedule selection should always start with the workload and associated coverage requirements. Is there sufficient staff to achieve the coverage requirements or will it be necessary to build overtime into the schedule? What shift length(s) would work best at matching the coverage with the workload? Are there other issues, such as a high absence rate or a strong preference for fixed shifts, that should be considered? The next step would be to create a couple of different options that allow the employees to compare features such as shift length, consecutive days of work, nature of the breaks (i.e. days off), and the number of weekends off. That way they can make an informed decision based on the good and bad points of each option.

Some time ago, I got a call from the Chief of Police from a small city in the Mid-West. He had 6 officers and needed a minimum of 1-person coverage on a 24/7 basis. Their work schedule consisted of 8-hour fixed shifts. The officers were pretty happy with the schedule since they got every other weekend off. The problem was the high overtime expenses needed to cover vacations and other absences. The officers had an absence rate of almost 20%, which resulted in an overtime bill of around $80K a year. He was thinking about hiring another officer, but couldn't figure out how to use him to cover absences unless it was his full-time job.

I told him that he didn't need to hire more staff'; he needed a different schedule. 8-hour fixed shift schedules are not very efficient, especially in small groups like his. In his case, they would provide 1-person coverage 4 days a week and 2-person coverage 3 days a week. To ensure every other weekend was off, the double coverage was scheduled for weekdays only. Since most absences occurred on the weekends (when they only had 1-person coverage), they were forced to use overtime to avoid gaps in the coverage.

When choosing the best scheduling approach, he and his officers would have to make a tradeoff between shift length and format (fixed vs. rotating shifts) when selecting a new schedule. If having fixed shifts was most important schedule feature, they should adopt a 12-hour fixed shift schedule. If having 8-hour shifts was most important, they should adopt an 8-hour rotating shift schedule. Either approach would free up capacity to cover absences without excessive overtime. Flexible relief time could then be built right into the schedule.

With the12-hour fixed shifts, 3 officers would be assigned to each shift. Each shift would have a 3-week schedule in which one week was devoted to relief coverage and the other two weeks were devoted to the required coverage. They would have to work an average of 42 hours a week. Yes, overtime would be required, but a total of 12 hours per week for the entire group is all they would need. 

With the 8-hour rotating shifts, the 6 officers would work a 6-week schedule in which two weeks were devoted to relief coverage and 4 weeks were devoted to the required coverage. They would also average 42 hours a week.

The Chief said he'd have to think about it. He was hesitant to do this because the city was opposed to having employees work more than 40 hours a week and the officers were opposed to changing schedules. I never heard from him again. I suppose he's still incurring overtime every time someone is absent, having poor coverage, or maybe still searching for ideas on how to fix this. Or maybe he hired another officer. So he is either spending $60K a year for a 7th officer (wages + benefits) or $80K on overtime. What would you do?