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, drag-and-drop planning, open shifts and a bird's-eye view of which shifts are covered are evidenced, and labour cost can be compared against a static budget while still planning — that last part I value. But the plan is drawn by hand from templates rather than proposed from demand: the revenue link is described only as combining labour cost forecasting with daily or weekly revenue figures, with no POS, footfall or occupancy source named, and we found no public information on staffing requirements per shift, role or qualification modelling, or sharing staff across locations. 1 2 4 5