When managers explain why they're searching for a new shift schedule, it usually boils down to one of these three reasons:

Resource Changes

Either the staff size or the group's budget is changing. If the group is getting bigger, there may be opportunities to use the extra capacity to reduce the average weekly hours, boost coverage on one or more shifts, or build relief coverage into the schedule to cover some of the absences. If the group is getting smaller, the average weekly hours of work may have to be increased to maintain the minimum coverage requirements.

Sometimes upper management wants to cut costs but not change the headcount. The group will have to do a cost analysis of overtime in the schedule vs. overtime outside the schedule to determine the best approach. You can read about this here:  http://www.shift-schedule-design.com/Overtime_Issues. The group may also be forced to consider other schedule changes that will lower costs as discussed here:  http://www.shift-schedule-design.com/Cost_Reduction.

New Business Requirements

When the demand for an organization's products or services changes (usually by increasing), this may require them to hire more employees or make more effective use of their current employees. In either case, it's a good time to align the coverage with the workload. We start the schedule design process by evaluating work volumes and the associated coverage requirements by time of day and day of the week. We also consider absence coverage if the resources are adequate.

Employee Satisfaction

When employees search for a new schedule, they are primarily looking for ways to increase the days off and weekends off. When managers cite employee satisfaction as a reason for changing schedules, they hope that the change will reduce absenteeism and employee turnover, or improve productivity and morale issues. Once business requirements are satisfied, we will evaluate solutions that maximize days off and weekends off and, if possible, reduce the need for mandatory overtime.

Most people think a shift schedule is effective if it does a good job with one of these 3 goals:

1. Better staff utilization – coverage that is consistent and matched with the workload
2. Reduced labor costs – lower wages and/or overtime
3. 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.

Most organizations cannot eliminate ALL of the overtime without sacrificing production or service levels. There are three situations in which overtime is going to be necessary: (1) the work volume temporarily increases, (2) a position is vacant, or (3) someone is absent (vacation, illness, training, etc.). I refer to this as overtime incurred outside the normal work schedule.

Sometimes it's possible to reduce overtime by swapping where it occurs. If you increase the overtime within the regular work schedule (e.g., by increasing the average hours of work from 40 to 42 per week), it may be possible to reduce the need for overtime outside the schedule. In some cases, the total overtime will be reduced.

I know, you're going to argue that overtime should be given to those employees who want it the most and volunteer for it. That's fine - up to a point. But when the overtime becomes excessive or when it continues so long that employees become addicted to it, then it's a problem. Or when you run out of volunteers and have to rely on mandatory, forced overtime to achieve or maintain the desired coverage levels - that's not good.

Here are two examples that illustrate the benefits of increasing overtime in the schedule to reduce overtime that occurs outside the schedule.

Example #1
A police department needs two people working at all times on a 24/7 basis. They are using 9 officers with an 8-hour rotating shift schedule because they don't want any overtime in the schedule. The problem is, like most law enforcement agencies, they have a high absence rate which causes their overtime to bust the budget.

If they built a small amount of overtime into the schedule, they could free up enough capacity to have a full week of relief coverage. They would need a 9-week schedule in which 8 weeks were devoted to the required coverage and 1 week was devoted to relief coverage. All 9 employees would share the relief responsibility equally. With rotating shifts, this relief coverage could be used to cover absences on any shift. It doesn't mean the relief employee would work all week; it simply means they are on-call for that week. If someone was scheduled for vacation, the relief person would work the vacationer's schedule that week and nothing more. If no one took vacation, the relief person could work a Mon-Fri day shift or go to training or work on a special project.

So the tradeoff is 2 hours of overtime for all 9 employees every week (18 hours of total overtime) in exchange for the flexibility to cover 40 to 48 hours of absences a week. Granted, someone won't be on vacation every week, but isn't it compelling to use 18 hours of OT in the schedule to avoid an average of 42 hours of OT outside the schedule? And think of the time saved trying to find volunteers to cover any absences, or the aggravation of forcing a junior employee to do a couple of double shifts when no one else volunteers.

Example #2
This example comes from a company that I designed schedules for earlier this week. They have 8 employees and need 2-person coverage at all times on a 24/7 basis. This would be simple if the 8 employees worked an average of 42 hours a week. The problem was that upper management would not approve a schedule with overtime in it. So I created three schedule options using a combination of 12-hour and 4-hour shifts. The 8 employees will have to work three 12-hour shifts and one 4-hour shift or 40 hours every week.

Although the schedules had no overtime in them, there were two 8 hour periods with only 1-person coverage instead of the desired 2-person coverage. The good news is that the organization had three supervisors to fill these open slots. The bad news is that the supervisors already had a tough time trying to be available on a 24/7 basis. When you added the two extra shifts plus relief coverage for all the other absences including their own, the supervisors were working way too many hours a week and were burned out.

I recommended that the client hire one more employee and have the 9 employees work a 12-hour schedule that averaged 42 hours a week. This would have allowed them to build a full week of relief coverage into the schedule. There would be no coverage gaps and a lot less need for OT to cover absences. I was unable to convince them that was the best solution. And believe me, I gave it my best shot. I'll probably hear from them again when the supervisors start bailing out for more attractive work environments with other employers. It's too bad that management's desire to avoid overtime in the employee's schedule is ruining the job for the supervisors. Replacing those supervisors is going to be a lot more expensive and painful.

When organizations struggle to make ends meet, overtime often becomes a target in their budget reduction plans. Although reducing overtime may be financially prudent for most departments, it is a poor choice for those that operate around-the-clock. Here's why.

The simplest and most common way to provide 24/7 coverage is with four crews. If the crews work 40 hours a week, that provides 160 hours of coverage (4 crews * 40 hours = 160 hours). The problem is that there are 168 hours in a week (24 hours * 7 days = 168 hours).

The easiest way to close the 8-hour gap is to have the four crews work a small amount of overtime (an average of two hours per employee every week). With 8-hour shift schedules, that requires three hours extra pay for each employee, or a 7.5 percent increase.  With 12-hour shift schedules, that requires four hours of additional pay for each employee, or a 10 percent increase.

If an organization is prohibited from using overtime, it must choose one of the following approaches to avoid gaps in coverage:

1. Use part-time employees. Some smaller organizations can do this, though it can be a challenge to find and retain good part-time employees. With larger groups, it can be difficult to fit part-time employees into the schedule without having one shift staffed solely with part-timers. This approach will increase costs by 5 percent. Although slightly less expensive than using overtime, it has limited applicability.

2. Use more than four crews. A schedule that uses more than four crews requires a larger headcount. If an organization does this, they usually allocate some of the extra work hours to training, relief, maintenance or special projects. Even if you ignore the cost of benefits for the additional employees (usually anywhere from 40 percent to 50 percent of the wages), this approach will increase costs by at least 25 percent.

3. Use a crewless schedule. Instead of scheduling groups of personnel (i.e. crews), you could develop a schedule for each individual employee. This approach also will require more employees than a typical four-crew schedule. The number depends on: (a) the shift length, (b) whether the shifts are rotating or fixed, and (c) the number of job categories/positions involved. This can increase costs anywhere from 7.7 percent to 50 percent if you ignore the cost of benefits. In most cases, this approach will cost more than using a four-crew schedule with built-in overtime.

Although overtime is often perceived as something to be avoided (because it requires a time-and-a-half pay premium), it is not the most expensive approach for providing 24/7 coverage. Using part-time employees to supplement four full-time crews is the least expensive solution, but this is only feasible in smaller groups. So, before banning overtime, it is important to recognize that the policy will force groups that operate around-the-clock to adopt schedules that are actually more expensive.

When organizations view overtime as an expense rather than a strategic tool, they often make three major mistakes:

• They staff for peak demand. In order to have enough resources on hand to respond to short-term fluctuations in demand, they over-staff instead of using overtime. Usually this is the most expensive approach.
  
  
• They sacrifice customer service. Without overtime, they are unable to respond to fluctuations in demand. In short, they sacrifice customer service to avoid overtime.
  
  
• They build up an inventory of excess product to have a cushion for demand variations. The cost of this inventory must be passed on to customers.
  
  

Here are three more articles on overtime.

Reasons for using overtime. Four valid reasons for using overtime are: (1) 24/7 coverage, (2) workload fluctuations, (3) staff variations, and (4) labor market considerations.

Overtime problems. High overtime, especially when it continues for an extended time period, has several potential drawbacks: (1) an overtime-dependent workforce, (2) safety and quality issues, (3) absenteeism, and (4) lower productivity.

Correcting overtime problems. To avoid overtime problems, you should regularly monitor overtime and absences. You also should understand the workload variations and take steps to improve the accuracy of your demand forecasts. Periodically, you should review your organization's overtime distribution policies to make sure they are working properly.

Even when employees understand the need for the employer to change from operating 5 days a week to 7 days a week, they aren't very receptive. Yes they are fed up with regularly working 6 days a week and sometimes all 7 days. Even though they will get more days off (and more full weekends off) on a 24/7 schedule, they resist the change.

I thought you might like to read some of the typical comments from employees facing this major change:

• If we choose to go to 12-hour shifts, will everything over 8 per day still be overtime or will it change to only being over 40 hours a week?
  
  
• Seniority and how the people working those new shifts will be selected. Vacation/personal days (how they work). Holiday pay. Coverage of shifts for call-outs, sick days and vacation. Do we still get paid for not taking a lunch break? If we work 12-hours, how does that work?
  
  
• How will working a 24/7 work week will affect the wear and tear on the equipment used on a daily basis?
  
  
• Can this be done with an 8-hour shift? Does everyone have to work 12 hours?
  
  
• What about those of us who need all the OT we can get because our bills can't be paid without it? Do we get a second job?
  
  
• If I would have to work the overnight shift, everything in my life will be affected. I would also hope my pay to stay the same or get better.
  
  
• Overtime is very important to ALL of us because a lot of us are under-paid and need it to make ends meet. So please keep that in mind as well.
  
  
• The fact that we are being forced to make a decision that increases the company's profit, and in turn we have to bend over backwards to do it and get no sort of compensation to do it. It's bullshit and greedy.
  
  
• How does seniority relate to any of this?
  
  
• I understand the reason for 24/7 operation. However, this process to me is just another way management confronts challenges/issues. In short, the management team does not address the core problem. Rather they address the symptoms of the core problem.
  
  

If you manage a business that is considering the idea of expanding to 24/7, you may be wondering how your employees will react to the change. You can expect most employees to focus on the loss of weekends off and the loss of overtime. This is despite the fact that they are already working every Saturday and some Sundays, and even though most 24/7 schedules have some overtime built into them.

Employee responses often depend on how the question is asked. If you simply ask whether they would mind working the weekends, you can expect the answer will be, "No way!" If the question is reframed to whether they would like 10% more pay and 78 more days off annually, you would probably get a completely different response. Responses also will be based on their specific concerns, such as the following:

• Employees may not understand or appreciate the economic and competitive reasons for running the business 7 days a week. Larger organizations often prepare a business case that discusses reasons for the change. You may not need to be this formal, but you must clearly explain and justify the need for a 24/7 schedule. Lacking a compelling reason for making this change, employees will assume the worst. Management is doing this to get rid of people they don't like. Management doesn't care about the workers or their families. Management is doing this to bust the union. Management is doing this for their convenience, etc., etc.
  
  
• Employees may be concerned about the unknowns of a new schedule. It's important to give them as much information as possible: days off, weekends off, maximum consecutive days of work, maximum consecutive days off, minimum consecutive days off, pay impact, paid time-off (vacations, holidays, bereavement leave, etc.) impact, and so on. They may need time to digest this information, so don't rush it. While there is no way to eliminate all the unknowns in advance, you should tell the workforce as much as you can. If you can know the absence rates and can estimate the overtime requirements, show them. If you are planning to change the vacation or holiday policies, let them know.
  
  
• Employees may misunderstand 24/7 schedules. When told the company will operate 7 days a week, they mistakenly think they will have to work every day of the week. They may have friends who are shift workers who have told them horror stories about 24/7 schedules. You will need to show them several different schedule examples and compare the number of days off, weekends off, and pay vs. the current schedule.

I highly recommend following a strategic schedule selection process. I have described this process elsewhere on my website. Here's a link: http://www.shift-schedule-design.com/Schedule_Selection_Process.

Higher-ranking law enforcement personnel (e.g., Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, Captains, and Lieutenants) tend to look at 10-hour shifts in a different way than their subordinates do. They are well aware of the popularity of 10-hour shifts among the officers/deputies, but often are unable to adopt them due to resource constraints. Let's look at the major considerations in the change to 10-hour shifts from the management perspective.

Overtime

Since four 10-hour shifts add up to 40 hours a week, some people believe 10-hour shifts will eliminate overtime from the work schedule. Unfortunately, this is not always the case as shown below:

A crew can consist of one to hundreds of officers. Unlike many 8 or 12-hour shift schedules that require 4 crews, 10-hour schedules require 5 or more crews. For example, to have 1-person coverage around-the-clock, you need 5 people if you use rotating shifts and 6 people if you use fixed shifts. To have 2-person coverage, you would need 10 people (5 crews of 2 each) with rotating shifts and 12 people (6 crews of 2 each) with fixed shifts.

The most common 10-hour schedules rely on 5 or 15 crews. These schedules average 42 hours a week, the same as most 8-hour and 12-hour schedules that use 4 crews. I occasionally get calls from Police Captains and Lieutenants who have tried to create a schedule on their own, but can't make it work. They didn't realize that the schedule needed an occasional 50-hour work week or that it required more crews. Overtime is unnecessary only when the schedule is comprised of 6 crews or 21 crews (and sometimes with a crewless schedule).

Overlapping Shifts

A schedule that uses three 10-hour shifts will have 6 hours a day in which the shifts overlap one another. There are two common ways to use the overlaps:

• Overlap each shift by two hours. Officers on the out-going shift can do their paperwork while officers on the in-coming shift are out on the street. This ensures continued coverage throughout the day. This approach tends to be preferred by the officers.
  
  
• Align the overlapping shifts with the busiest period of the day. Coverage can be boosted for 6, 12 or 16 hours a day depending on how the shifts are scheduled. I recommend this approach because the primary reason for having a schedule is to allocate the resources to match the workload. The downside is that it often requires unusual shift start/end times. This approach tends to be preferred by management.

Coverage Reduction

The biggest problem with 10-hour shifts is that they require more resources than 8-hour or 12-hour shifts. A 10-hour schedule requires more staff because the officers are working 30 hours a day (three 10-hour shifts). This will either require 25% more personnel or a 25% reduction in the coverage levels. In most cases, headcounts are frozen, so the impact is reduced coverage on each shift.

Even if sufficient staff is available, they are usually needed for other purposes such as absence coverage. Since the absence rates in most police departments are rather high, most Chiefs opt to use any “extra” staff in one of two ways:

• Increase coverage levels above the minimum. For example, a department needs a minimum of 3 officers on each shift. This requires at least 12 officers working an average of 42 hours a week. They use their staff of 16 officers to provide 4-person coverage. This allows for up to one absence on each shift.
  
  
• Build relief coverage into the schedule. This is often more efficient than increasing the coverage on each shift. For example, the same department only has 14 officers, so they adopt a 14-week rotating shift schedule in which 2 of the 14 weeks are devoted to relief coverage. This requires fewer staff and provides more flexible absence coverage.

When the "extra" coverage is lost, absences (like vacations, sick time, training, court time, etc.) will have to be covered using overtime. This is the most common reason for rejecting the switch to 10-hour shifts. This is such an important point that I have to repeat it. Adopting 10-hour shifts will reduce the coverage on each shift (except for the periods of overlapping shifts). Since part of this coverage provides a cushion for absences, the 10-hour shifts will result in much higher levels of overtime.

Absences

Some people believe that 10-hour shifts will reduce absences. Since the longer shifts provide one additional day off each week, this time can be used for doctor's appointments or other personal business. I am not aware of any studies that confirm this, but it seems possible. The Shift Length Experiment prepared by the Police Foundation did not report any significant reductions in sick leave when switching to 10s (http://www.policefoundation.org/publication/shift-length-experiment/). If there is an impact, it is undoubtedly small. 

Conclusions

10-hour shifts are universally popular with the officers. Chiefs or Sheriffs are aware of this, but lack of resources to make the change. From what I've seen, it's primarily the larger departments that have adequate resources to adopt 10s. Smaller departments (less than 30 officers) rarely have enough personnel. 

Higher-ranking law enforcement personnel (e.g., Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, Captains, and Lieutenants) tend to look at 10-hour shifts in a different way than their subordinates do. They are well aware of the popularity of 10-hour shifts among the officers/deputies, but often are unable to adopt them due to resource constraints. Let's look at the major considerations in the change to 10-hour shifts from the management perspective.

Overtime

Since four 10-hour shifts add up to 40 hours a week, some people believe 10-hour shifts will eliminate overtime from the work schedule. Unfortunately, this is not always the case as shown below:

A crew can consist of one to hundreds of officers. Unlike many 8 or 12-hour shift schedules that require 4 crews, 10-hour schedules require 5 or more crews. For example, to have 1-person coverage around-the-clock, you need 5 people if you use rotating shifts and 6 people if you use fixed shifts. To have 2-person coverage, you would need 10 people (5 crews of 2 each) with rotating shifts and 12 people (6 crews of 2 each) with fixed shifts.

The most common 10-hour schedules rely on 5 or 15 crews. These schedules average 42 hours a week, the same as most 8-hour and 12-hour schedules that use 4 crews. I occasionally get calls from Police Captains and Lieutenants who have tried to create a schedule on their own, but can't make it work. They didn't realize that the schedule needed an occasional 50-hour work week or that it required more crews. Overtime is unnecessary only when the schedule is comprised of 6 crews or 21 crews (and sometimes with a crewless schedule).

Overlapping Shifts

A schedule that uses three 10-hour shifts will have 6 hours a day in which the shifts overlap one another, producing double coverage. There are two common ways to use the overlaps:

• Overlap each shift by two hours. Officers on the out-going shift can do their paperwork while officers on the in-coming shift are out on the street. This ensures continued coverage throughout the day. This approach tends to be preferred by the officers.
  
  
• Align the overlapping shifts with the busiest period of the day. Coverage can be boosted for 6, 12 or 16 hours a day depending on how the shifts are scheduled. I recommend this approach because the primary reason for having a schedule is to allocate the resources to match the workload. The downside is that it often requires unusual shift start/end times. This approach tends to be preferred by management.

Coverage Reduction

The biggest problem with 10-hour shifts is that they require more resources than 8-hour or 12-hour shifts. A 10-hour schedule requires more staff because the officers are really covering 30 hours a day (three 10-hour shifts). This will either require 25% more personnel or a 25% reduction in the coverage levels. In most cases, headcounts are frozen, so the impact is reduced coverage on each shift.

Even if sufficient staff is available, they are usually needed for other purposes such as absence coverage. Since the absence rates in most police departments are rather high, most Chiefs opt to use any “extra” staff in one of two ways:

• Increase coverage levels above the minimum. For example, a department needs 3 officers on each shift. This requires at least 12 officers working an average of 42 hours a week. They use their staff of 16 officers to provide 4-person coverage. This allows for up to one absence on each shift.
  
  
• Build relief coverage into the schedule. This is often more efficient than increasing the coverage on each shift. For example, the same department only has 14 officers, so they adopt a 14-week rotating shift schedule in which 2 of the 14 weeks are devoted to relief coverage. This requires fewer staff and provides more flexible absence coverage.

When the "extra" coverage is lost, absences (like vacations, sick time, training, court time, etc.) will have to be covered using overtime. This is the most common reason for rejecting the switch to 10-hour shifts. This is such an important point that I have to repeat it. Adopting 10-hour shifts will reduce the coverage on each shift (except for the periods of overlapping shifts). Since part of this coverage provides a cushion for absences, the 10-hour shifts will result in much higher levels of overtime.

Absences

Some people believe that 10-hour shifts will reduce absences. Since the longer shifts provide one additional day off each week, this time can be used for doctor's appointments or other personal business. I am not aware of any studies that confirm this, but it seems possible. The Shift Length Experiment prepared by the Police Foundation did not report any significant reductions in sick leave when switching to 10s (http://www.policefoundation.org/publication/shift-length-experiment/). If there is an impact, it is undoubtedly small. 

Conclusions

10-hour shifts are universally popular with the officers. Chiefs or Sheriffs are aware of this, but often lack adequate resources to make the change. The simple fact that 10-hour shifts require at least 25% more staff than other approaches means that few departments can afford them. From what I've seen, it's primarily the larger departments that have adequate resources to adopt 10s. Smaller departments (less than 30 officers) rarely have enough personnel. 

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 2^nd or 3^rd 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.