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 Operations Director
Templates, skills and certification tracking, open shifts, coverage views and labour sharing between departments and locations are all on the record, and an auto-scheduler proposes rosters matched on eligibility, availability and preferences, with budgeting tools and labour forecasting that compare scheduled hours against future demand. The demand source stays vague: a POS integration is listed, but we found no public information tying POS revenue or any other named data feed to the forecast, and the auto-scheduler's "zero conflicts" claim arrives with no documented method. We also found no public information on forecast versus actual hours compared in one place. 1 2