Roster building & demand planning
How this is scored
How a plan gets built across locations, roles and qualifications — templates, staffing requirements, forecasting from sales or occupancy, and whether the product proposes a roster or only draws one.
0 — A shared calendar of shifts; no templates, no roles or qualifications, and no notion of how many people a shift needs.
3 — Shift templates and a weekly grid per location, with roles attached, but staffing needs and qualifications are the planner's memory rather than the system's.
5 — Templates, roles and qualifications, staffing requirements per shift, open shifts, multiple locations and departments, and coverage gaps shown before publication.
8 — Demand-based planning from a named data source (POS revenue, footfall, occupancy or bookings), automatic roster proposals the planner can accept or adjust, labour cost shown against budget while planning, and cross-location staff sharing.
10 — Planning closes the loop: forecast, proposed roster and actual hours compared in one place, the proposal explains which rule or demand figure drove each assignment, and the vendor documents the forecasting method rather than calling it AI.
The Skeptic
The pages do show the product proposing a roster rather than only drawing one — automatic assignment weighted toward employees not already in overtime, replacement suggestions, and open shifts that notify only those meeting the requirements you set. But the demand side never appears: no sales, occupancy or footfall input anywhere, and the "AI" turns out to be a photo importer for a paper schedule. Staffing requirements per shift and coverage gaps shown before publication are not evidenced, so this sits mid-scale on the strength of the automatic assignment alone. 2 3