The most efficient shift length (one that requires the fewest staff) depends the nature of the hourly coverage requirements, i.e. whether the coverage needs are constant or vary on a regular basis throughout the day. It doesn't matter if the group operates 24/7 or something less than that. Here's a flow chart of the steps involved:         24/7 Operations If the coverage requirements are steady throughout the day, then the best choice is either 8-hour or 12-hour shifts. That's because these shift lengths don't overlap during the 24-hour day. Other shift lengths (9, 10, or 11 hours) would overlap. This not only doubles the coverage during the overlap(s), but it also increases the staffing requirements. Three 9-hour shifts require 12.5% more staff, three 10-hour shifts require 25% more staff, and three 11-hour shifts require 37.5% more staff.   If the coverage requirements vary fairly regularly by time of day, the organization can either use: Fixed shifts with different staffing levels on each shift that match the coverage requirements, e.g., 4 people on day shift, 3 people on evening shift, and 2 people on night shift.   Overlapping shifts, e.g., 9 or 10-hour shifts. By changing the shift start and end times, the daily overlaps can be consolidated and matched to the busy period.   An overlay shift that boosts the coverage for the length of that additional shift, e.g., a 6-hour shift from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. Less than 24/7 Operations If the coverage requirements are steady, the best choice would be a shift length that matches the hours of operation - up to a maximum of 12 hours. For example, if the company is open for 11 hours a day, the most efficient choice would be an 11-hour shift, since this would require the smallest number of employees and would avoid any overlapping shifts. If the daily hours exceed 12 hours, then 2 shifts are needed each day. For example, a company that is open 14 hours a day could have two 7-hour shifts or one 8-hour shift and one 6-hour shift.   If the coverage requirements vary by time of day, the organization can either use: Fixed shifts with different staffing levels on each shift that match the coverage requirements, e.g., 2 people on the first shift and 4 people on the second shift.   Overlapping shifts. For example, if the late afternoon is busiest, a company could use a 12-hour day shift and an 8-hour evening shift that overlaps from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.   An overlay shift that boosts the coverage for the length of that additional shift, e.g., a 4-hour shift from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Summary If you want to maximize employee utilization, your shift length should be based on the whether the workload and associated coverage requirements remain steady throughout the day or vary on a fairly regular basis. Steady workloads should have shifts that don't overlap for more than the length of a meal break. Variable workloads can be addressed in several different ways.   Many people choose the shift length for other reasons. For example, they choose 10-hour shifts, hoping to get an extra day off each week, or they choose 12-hour shifts, hoping to get more weekends off. They don't realize that this may increase the headcount requirements, not match the coverage with the workload, or utilize the staff ineffectively.  

In surveys of more than 20K shiftworkers, we asked them about their shift length preferences for 24/7 coverage. We did it in a way to avoid directly mentioning specific shift lengths as shown in the graph below: We found that asking specific shift lengths did not give reliable answers since it was based on perceptions rather than actual schedules. When we showed the shiftworkers actual schedule examples using different shift lengths, here is how they responded: Ratings definitions:      5 = I like it a lot      4 = It has potential to be good      3 = neutral or not sure      2 = It doesn't look promising      1 = I don't like it      

When organizations need a new shift schedule, their managers often begin by searching for either: A specific work pattern, e.g., Pitman, DuPont, 6-on-3-off, or 4-on-2-off A desired schedule format, e.g., 10 or 12-hour fixed shifts This approach often will produce inferior results for three reasons:  (1) workload variations, (2) crew requirements, and (3) overlapping shifts. Let's take a look at each of these reasons in more detail. Workload Variations Most smaller organizations don't have a steady volume of work. Some have a workload that varies by time of day. For example, police and communications centers are often busier during the evening hours. Customer service centers may have more calls during the daylight hours, such as 4-person coverage from 0800 to 1700 and 2-person coverage from 1700 to 0800. Some organizations don't have a steady work volume throughout the week. For example, they may have lighter workloads on the weekends, such as 4-person coverage Monday to Friday and only 2-person coverage on Saturday and Sunday. Most 24/7 schedule patterns are designed to provide the same coverage around-the-clock, e.g., 3-person coverage on a 24/7 basis. This are inappropriate for organizations whose workload varies by shift or day of the week. It's important to keep in mind that the primary reason for having a schedule is to match the coverage with the workload. Managers tend to forget this key point when they search for a schedule pattern they hope will improve morale or reduce turnover. Crew Requirements Work patterns are designed for a specific number of employees or crews. For example, the Pittman 12- hour shift pattern (also known as an Every Other Weekend Off schedule) is designed for 2 crews per shift. The 6-on-3-off pattern using 8-hour shifts is designed for 9 crews (or employees) on each shift.  Yet organizations use these patterns with the wrong number of crews all the time. I just finished a job for a client that was using the 6-on-3-off pattern with only 5 employees on each shift. As a result, their coverage varied from day to day in a haphazard fashion. Employees liked the schedule pattern, but it was not an effective solution for the organization. Starting the search for a new schedule with a specific pattern in mind will rarely result in the most effective choice for the organization. Overlapping Shifts When organizations choose a desired shift length in an attempt to satisfy employees, they fail to consider the impact on coverage. This usually occurs with 10-hour shifts. Employees want to get an extra day off each week and they dread the idea of 12-hour shifts. So 10-hour shifts seem to be an ideal choice. The problem is that they come at a high price for the organization. Since the organization is now working 30 hours a day (three 10-hour shifts), this requires 25% more personnel or 25% less coverage. For example, a group of 16 employees on 8-hour shifts had 4-person coverage around-the-clock. After changing to 10s, the coverage dropped to 3 people. In addition, there are six hours every day in which the shifts overlapped. They now had 6 people working for this six-hour period every day when they only needed 4 people.   Summary and Recommendations Have you ever reflected on why you have a schedule? Yes, satisfying the employees is important. But that's not the reason for the schedule. The schedule is there to ensure the organization deploys its resources as effectively as possible. Many managers seem to forget this critical point. They hear about a popular pattern or they think 10-hour shifts will make everyone happy. They don't think about the impact on the organization. I'm not saying that we ignore employee preferences. I'm simply saying that they're not the starting point in the search for a better schedule. Here is the approach I recommend: Determine the hours of operation. Does the organization operate 24/7 or something less than that? If the hours are less than 24/7, make sure they are based on business requirements, not on shift length preferences. For example, a recent client was looking for 20/7 schedule. He didn't have enough staff to achieve the desired coverage levels, so I questioned him about the hours. He said he chose them in order to justify using two 10-hour shifts. He forgot that working an extra 4 hours a day would require 25% more personnel. Determine whether the workload is constant or variable. If it's variable, two general approaches can be followed. One way is to establish base coverage using either 8-hour or 12-hour shifts and then add an overlay shift (sometimes called a Power shift) to boost coverage during the busy period. The other way is to combine different shift lengths or use 10-hour shifts and match the overlapping shifts with the busy period(s).  Identify the coverage requirements (i.e. the number of employees you need to show up for work - by hour of the day and day of the week). Many managers mistakenly specify the coverage requirements using the current shift length. This simplifies the task, but it may not be the best match for the workload. If you can identify the work volumes and coverage requirements by hour of the day, that is ideal. Decide which shift lengths are the best fit with the coverage requirements. If the workload is constant, 8-hour or 12-hour shifts would be best. If the workload varies, which shift length(s) are the best fit? If more than one shift length would work, which is preferred? Notice that shift length selection is the 4th step in the process, not the first.  Calculate whether the staff size is adequate to produce this coverage. If not, overtime may have to be built into the schedule or more employees hired. The free staffing calculator on my website can help with this step. Go to:  http://www.shift-schedule-design.com/Staffing_Calculator. If there is more staff than necessary, can these "extra" resources be used to build relief time into the schedule to cover absences? If the resources are adequate, it's time to start the actual shift schedule design. Often you can apply common schedule patterns as a starting point, and modify them to fit your unique circumstances. Suppose you have 5 employees on a 12-hour day shift. This will require a 5-week schedule. You could start with a common 2-week pattern, double it to 4 weeks, and add a new pattern for the 5th week. An important consideration is to use a pattern that matches your organization's pay week. If the original pattern was intended for a different pay week, you could end up with unnecessary overtime and you could lose some of the weekends off. Again, please note that pattern selection is the 6th step in the process - not the first step. We always try to create several different shift schedule options to show a range of possibilities, such as the number of consecutive days worked, different shift lengths, different work patterns, with or without relief coverage, and so on. The goal is to both satisfy client specifications and explore possibilities the client may not have considered. The bottom line is that the search for a new schedule begins with the business requirements, not with employee preferences. If you reverse this by searching for a schedule that you think employees will be happier with, the organization will suffer the consequences. My recommended approach does not ignore employee preferences; it just doesn't start with them.      

This is the third in a series of posts regarding fatigue in the workplace. The first post addressed educating employees about the need for 8-hours sleep and the impact of sleep deprivation. The second post addressed early day shift start times and how they reduce the amount of sleep people get. This post will address the impact of shift length on sleep and fatigue. Intuitively, you would think that the longer the work day, the less sleep you would get. To a certain extent, this is right. We have found that people working a 12-hour shift get about 10 minutes less sleep per night than people working an 8-hour shift. But that's not a complete picture since it is only looking at the days of work. People on longer shifts get more days off. Workers on 12-hour shifts will get 87 more days off each year than those on 8-hour shifts. Since people sleep more on their days off than they do on the days of work, the people on 12s actually will average more sleep than those on the 8-hour work days. Here's a link to a table showing the details: http://www.shift-schedule-design.com/12-Hour_Shifts. You may have to scroll down a couple of times to find the table. What do think? Counter-intuitive isn't it?

Everyone seems to have a different opinion as to what constitutes a good shift schedule. For many people, the judgment is based solely on whether the schedule satisfies a single concern or preference, such as:  (1) the desired shift length, (2) more weekends off, (3) a specific on-off work pattern, (4) no built-in overtime, or (5) coverage that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements. The problem with such a narrow focus is that it often requires sacrifices in other areas of the business. These tend to be ignored or never acknowledged, as illustrated by the following examples: Employees want management to adopt a 10-hour shift schedule because it will give them another day off each week. They don't realize that the organization would have to either increase the staff by 25% or reduce the coverage by 25%. The organization also would have to add one more supervisor, and the supervisors no longer would be working with the same crew at all times. In addition, the facility isn't large enough to accommodate the double coverage that would occur during the 6 hours a day that the shifts overlap. The city council insists on a 24/7 schedule with no built-in overtime as a way to reduce expenses in the police department. They don't realize that this will require a larger staff. If the cost of the additional officers and their benefits is disregarded, the council members will think they made a wise financial decision. In reality, they increased the department's overall expenses as a result of the increased headcount. Ideally, the search for a new schedule should consider the interests of all of the schedule's stakeholders (management, the union and employees). Establishing formal selection criteria to evaluate alternative schedules will force the organization to do this. It also will encourage them to set priorities and weigh the consequences. We recommend using the following criteria to ensure a comprehensive approach to the schedule selection process:  (1) effectiveness, (2) efficiency, (3) sleep, and (4) employee satisfaction. The next few blog posts will cover these four criteria and will show how they can be used to evaluate different scheduling options.

Search for information about 24/7 schedules and you'll find multiple websites showing examples of popular work patterns, e.g., Continental, Pitman, DuPont, 6-on-3-off, 4-on-2-off, etc. You get the impression that these schedule templates are good for any group that works around-the-clock. All you need to do is choose the option you like best.   This is highly misleading. There are three reasons why: Coverage. Smaller organizations rarely need the same number of people working at all times. Yet the free templates found on the Internet produce constant coverage on a 24/7 basis. The primary reason you have a schedule is to match the coverage with the workload, so why would you want a schedule that doesn't do that? It would be a huge waste of your resources.   Staffing. Each template works best with a specific number of crews (usually 4). If your staff size isn't a multiple of this number, the crews will not be the same size which will result in uneven coverage. Another staffing issue has to do with schedule attractiveness. Some templates look great, but require way more employees than other, more efficient patterns. Don't get seduced by a schedule's attractiveness.   Pay Week. Each template works best for a certain overtime / pay week, e.g., Sunday to Saturday. Some schedules can be modified, but some can't. This can result unbalanced work week hours and in the loss of weekends off for employees.  So, if looking through popular work patterns is not a good way to find a new 24/7 shift schedule, what's the best approach?   You should always start with the workload distribution and the associated coverage requirements. How many people do you need at work on each shift? Does this stay the same all week?   When we design schedules, we compare the coverage requirements with your staff size and the average hours worked each week to determine what is feasible. Sometimes, overtime may need to be built into the schedule to avoid gaps in coverage. Occasionally there may be more staff than necessary, so we'll show you different ways to utilize these "extra" resources. We then evaluate your schedule preferences to see if this creates any problems. If the resources are adequate for the coverage and scheduling preferences, we start the actual shift schedule design. Often, we can apply common scheduling patterns as a starting point, and modify them to fit your unique circumstances. We create several different shift schedule options to show you the range of possibilities, such as the number of consecutive days worked, different shift lengths, relief coverage, and so on. The goal is to satisfy your specifications and explore possibilities you may not have considered.  

When managers need a new shift schedule for their group, they usually start by searching the Internet for: Free examples of popular schedule patterns (e.g., 2-3-2, DuPont, or 4-on-4-off) Information about certain shift lengths (e.g., 10-hour or 12-hour shifts) In larger organizations (50+ employees), this is not the best approach because: They are not involving the employees. The best way to gain support for a new schedule is to involve employees in the selection process. They are not considering multiple options. Employees will view the schedule as something forced on them by management. They often fail to revise the organization's pay-related policies to match the new schedule. This can be a costly mistake. In smaller organizations (<50 employees), this is not the best approach because: The schedule may not be a good fit with their staff size. Most schedules rely on 4 crews. When organizations have a staff that's not a multiple of 4, the four crews won't be the same size which means the coverage will be inconsistent. The schedule may not match their workload distribution. Most popular schedules assume constant coverage around-the-clock. If the workload is lighter on the night shift or on the weekends, the shifts will be overstaffed. Scheduling people to work when they aren't needed is an expensive way to use personnel. The schedule may not make the most efficient use of their resources (staff and overtime). They are not considering different approaches or options. The schedule may be intended for a different overtime/pay week. So why do they do this? I believe there are four reasons: They forget that the true purpose of a schedule is to deploy the staff effectively and efficiently, not to force the organization to adapt to a popular work pattern. They don't realize the value of a schedule that is matched to their specific resources and requirements. They aren't aware of the importance of involving employees in the selection process. They don't understand the value in paying for scheduling help. Custom-designed schedules from Shift Schedule Design are matched to the organization's staff size, business requirements, and schedule preferences. This means you get: Benefits. Make optimal use of your resources: Match the coverage with the workload during all your hours of operation. Consistently achieve or exceed the minimum coverage requirements. Make the most efficient use of your staff and overtime. Increase employee satisfaction by maximizing weekends off. Quick turnaround. Get multiple options in 2 days or less. Money-back guarantee. If you can find a better schedule in the following year, we'll refund your money ("better" is defined as meeting all four of the above criteria). What you avoid. Hours or days spent searching for free schedules. Forced to choose from only one or two options. Schedules that don't deploy your employees effectively. Schedules that increase operating costs by not using your resources efficiently. Schedules that don't maximize weekends off.      

Catchy title, don't you think? Maybe I should write a book... Anyway, I just finished adding a new page to the website with this same title. I don't want to repeat the article here, but I'll give you a little teaser from the article itself: "If your group needs a new shift schedule, you naturally want to find the best possible schedule. But how do you know what's best? And how do you come with options for the group to consider? Let's start by exploring three things a good schedule must do: (1) optimize the coverage, (2) minimize the labor costs, and (3) maximize employee satisfaction." Here's a link to the article:  http://www.shift-schedule-design.com/Shift_Schedule_Design_for_Dummies. The article also lists a process for designing schedules, but it's the 3 things a good schedule must do that is most important. So many people think a good schedule merely has the shift length they want or an on-off work pattern they heard about (e.g., Panama, DuPont, or Southern Swing). They end up with schedules that produce ineffective or inconsistent coverage, cost more than necessary, and don't maximize weekends off for the employees.        

Most people think a shift schedule is effective if it does a good job with one of these 3 goals: Better staff utilization – coverage that is consistent and matched with the workload Reduced labor costs – lower wages and/or overtime Greater employee satisfaction – more days off and/or more weekends off Unfortunately, doing well with one goal often means compromising the other two. Here's an example. Suppose the employees want a 10-hour shift schedule to get one more day off each week and possibly more weekends off. This would certainly help the third goal: greater employee satisfaction. But what would it do to the other two goals? Since the 10-hour shifts would overlap for 6 hours a day, this would exceed the physical capacity of the work area. Employees from one of the overlapping shifts would be sitting around with nothing to do for 6 hours – every day of the week. This is definitely not a good way to use the staff. What about labor costs? Well, since the 10-hour shifts would require the organization to work 30 hours a day (three 10-hour shifts), the additional hours of coverage would necessitate an increase in the staff size by 25%. This certainly would not save money. So how do you find a schedule that satisfies all 3 goals? Simple. Instead of starting the search for a new schedule with a focus on Goal #3: Greater Employee Satisfaction, you start with #1: Better Staff Utilization. You then move to the second goal, and finally to the third goal. Here are the steps we follow when designing a new employee shift schedule: Feasibility. We start by comparing your coverage requirements and scheduling preferences with your staff size to determine the feasibility. Sometimes the resources are inadequate, so different approaches may have to be considered. Possibilities. Sometimes, overtime may need to be built into the schedule to avoid gaps in coverage. Occasionally there may be more staff than necessary, so we'll show you different ways to utilize these "extra" resources. Work patterns. In this third step, we start the actual shift schedule design. Often we can apply common scheduling patterns as a starting point, and modify them to fit your unique circumstances. Options. We create several different shift schedule options to show you the range of possibilities, such as the number of consecutive days worked, different shift lengths, relief coverage, alternative patterns, and so on. This process ensures that the schedules we create are effective with all three goals, not just one of them.

Your group needs a new employee work schedule. Maybe the staff size has changed. Or the demand for your product/services requires you to increase the hours of operation. Perhaps you've run out of space and need to add a 2nd or 3rd shift. Maybe you're just tired of listening to employee complaints. Whatever the reason, you know that something has to be done. If you're like most managers in this situation, you may be asking friends or associates in your industry about their schedules. And you're probably searching the Internet for additional ideas. It's important to find a solution that doesn't require a lot of time or money. Your regular responsibilities can't be put on hold and your budget has little room for unexpected expenditures. Unfortunately, a schedule that's not tailored to the organization's hours of operation, coverage requirements, staff size, and pay week will rarely be a good solution. You will probably end up with problems such as these: Ineffective coverage Inconsistent coverage Over-staffing Unnecessary overtime Minimal weekends off Let's look at each of these problems a little closer. Ineffective Coverage The fundamental purpose of the schedule is to ensure the right number of people at work during all the hours of operation, i.e., to match the coverage with the workload. If the work volume is fairly steady, then the coverage also should be constant. A schedule with hours of overlapping shifts would be ineffective for these situations. For example, using 10-hour shifts in an organization with a steady workload would be a waste. There is no need for the 6 hours of double coverage while the shifts overlap. It would also be costly, since it would require 25% more personnel than a schedule using 8-hour or 12-hour shifts. If the work volume varies by time of day or day of the week, the coverage should reflect that. Possible solutions include mixed shift lengths, overlay or power shifts, 10-hour shifts, staggered shift start times, or different coverage levels on each shift. An example of ineffective coverage is a police department with a heavier workload on Friday and Saturday evenings that uses a schedule with the same coverage throughout the week. Inconsistent Coverage An ideal schedule consistently matches the desired coverage. Some schedules don't do this. Here are two examples: Sometimes companies have more staff than the minimum necessary. They may have reached this position because they were using an inefficient schedule which required more employees or they thought the extra personnel would help to cover absences. A small food processing firm needs 5 people working on a 24/7 basis. They employ 23 people, three more than the minimum necessary. They could have used the extra employees to build relief coverage into the schedule, but instead adopted a schedule in which the coverage varies between 5 and 6 people. Sometimes organizations adopt schedules that produce fluctuating coverage because they like the work pattern even though it is a poor match for their requirements. For example, a warehouse needs at least 3 people working around the clock. They chose a schedule with a 6-on-3-off pattern because their employees thought it would be better than the current schedule. Because of their staff size, however, the coverage varied between 2 and 3 people. To maintain the minimum coverage levels, the company was forced to hire 3 more employees. The coverage now varies between 3 and 4 people. In this case, choosing the wrong schedule increased their costs by 25% and it is still producing inconsistent coverage. Over-staffing Nobody wants to overstaff, yet it happens all the time. It occurs primarily for three reasons: The organization sets an annual target of less than 2,080 work hours per employee (<40 hours a week). For example, a police department has a labor contract that limits employees to 1,820 hours a year. This is an average of 35 hours a week. They need 5-person coverage using 10-hour rotating shifts. Because of the reduced work hours, they have to employ 30 officers. If they worked an average of 42 hours a week, they would only need 25 officers. The organization builds extra coverage into the schedule rather than using relief coverage. For example, small utility needs 4-person coverage at all times. Although they could do this with 16 people working an average of 42 hours a week, they employ 20 people to have 5-person coverage at all times. They could have employed 17 people (rotating shifts) or 18 people (fixed shifts) and built relief coverage time into the schedule which would have accomplished the same thing. The organization wants a schedule with no built-in overtime. A small hospital needs 3 CNAs on a 24/7 basis. Their 8-hour fixed shift schedule requires at least 12 people working an average of 42 hours a week. However, they are instructed to eliminate overtime from the schedule. To maintain the same coverage, they are forced to employ 15 people at 40 hours a week. Unnecessary Overtime People adopt work patterns that were intended for a different pay week. If they don't tweak the schedule, they could end up with highly unbalanced work weeks and more overtime than necessary. Example:  A small trucking company found a schedule that was intended for a Sun-Sat pay week. Since their pay week starts on Monday, the employees work 60 hours one week and 24 hours the next, and the company has to pay for an extra 3 hours of overtime per employee every week.     Minimal Weekends Off Employees want to get as many weekends off as possible. This may not be achieved if the organization chooses the wrong schedule or doesn't modify it to fit their pay week. A nursing home has a schedule with several split weekends in which employees work either Saturday or Sunday instead of both. A different pattern would have provided more full weekends off. Many work patterns work best for a certain pay week. For example, a popular 8-hour rotating shift schedule pattern that requires only 4 or 5 consecutive days of work provides 1 weekend off every four weeks - only if the pay week begins on Sunday. Trying to use this pattern with a Monday start will mean the workers never get a full weekend off. Conclusions When organizations select a schedule that is not matched to their specific resources or requirements, employees can suffer from fewer full weekends off and the organization can suffer from ineffective coverage and higher costs.