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 Schedule Builder genuinely proposes a full week of shifts the planner reviews in a draft canvas with conflicts surfaced before publishing, and labour costs and a Labor & Sales Forecaster sit behind permissions — but the proposal runs on the last published schedule, roles and availability, and the vendor calls the tool "AI-powered" without documenting the method. The captured pages do not show the forecaster's sales figures driving the roster, and we found no public information on cross-location staff sharing or qualifications beyond roles. 2 3 8