Workforce Planning and Scheduling

Workforce Planning, Rostering and Scheduling — How to Pick the Right System (Without Regretting It)

It’s 6:12pm on a Sunday.

A rostering lead has just opened their laptop “for five minutes” to check Monday coverage. Five minutes becomes an hour. Then two.

A handful of last-minute leave requests. A client who needs a different skill mix. A couple of gaps in the roster that nobody noticed because the latest spreadsheet version was saved as “FINAL_final_v7”.

By the time Monday morning arrives, the roster technically works — but it’s held together with overtime, goodwill, and a few quiet favours from supervisors who’ve done this dance too many times.

If that feels familiar, you’re not alone. Across health, aged care, disability, field services, contact centres, retail, logistics, and emergency response, workforce planning and scheduling has become one of the biggest levers for service reliability and cost control. And it’s also one of the easiest places for complexity to quietly multiply.

The catch is this: buying a rostering system doesn’t solve rostering.

A good system amplifies whatever you already have — your data, your rules, your operating rhythm, and your decision-making discipline. If those foundations are shaky, the technology will make the cracks more visible, not less.

This article is a practical guide for Australian organisations deciding how to pick the right workforce planning, rostering and scheduling system — and what to do before, during, and after selection to ensure you get the outcomes you paid for.

First, a shared language: workforce planning vs rostering vs scheduling

These terms get used interchangeably, but they’re not the same — and the difference matters when you’re evaluating systems.

Workforce planning (strategic and tactical)

Workforce planning answers: What workforce do we need, by role/skill/location, over the next months to years — and how do we get there?

It includes:

• demand forecasting (volumes, service minutes, calls, visits, tasks)
• capacity planning (FTE, hours, shrinkage, availability)
• workforce mix (permanent vs casual, agency, contingent, overtime strategy)
• recruitment pipeline planning
• budget and scenario modelling
• “guardrails” (utilisation targets, coverage targets, service constraints)

Rostering (tactical)

Rostering answers: What shifts will we publish, for which teams, with what patterns and rules?

It includes:

• shift patterns and templates
• award/EBA compliance rules and fatigue rules
• leave planning and approvals
• fairness and distribution (weekends, nights, unpopular shifts)
• team structures and skill mix rules

Scheduling (operational)

Scheduling answers: Who gets assigned to what work, when, and where — today and tomorrow — given what just changed?

It includes:

• real-time assignment and reallocations
• call-outs and last-minute changes
• travel time / route optimisation for mobile workforces
• intraday adjustments (contact centre volumes, cancellations)
• exception management and escalation rules

When organisations say “we need a new rostering system”, what they often mean is: we need better decisions, earlier visibility, and less manual effort across the whole chain — from forecasting right through to daily execution.

Why picking the “right system” is uniquely Australian

Australia adds a few realities that heavily influence system choice and implementation success:

• Awards and EBAs are complex and non-negotiable. If the system can’t confidently interpret your conditions (and you can’t validate them), you’ll end up with workarounds, payroll disputes, or both.
• Service delivery is increasingly distributed. Home care, disability support, field services and community models mean scheduling is no longer a “single site” problem — it’s a network problem.
• Workforce scarcity changes the optimisation goal. In many sectors, the question isn’t “how do we minimise labour cost?” It’s “how do we protect service reliability while keeping staff in the business?”
• Consumers and regulators expect consistency. Missed visits, long wait times, and non-compliance are now visible — through reporting, funding models, and customer feedback.

Your rostering and scheduling system isn’t just an operational tool. For many organisations, it becomes a core control point for service performance, workforce wellbeing, and financial outcomes.

The most common sign you need a new system: you’ve normalised the pain

A lot of organisations wait too long because the pain becomes “business as usual”. Here are the triggers that usually mean it’s time to take selection seriously.

You’re relying on heroic manual effort

• Rosters depend on one or two people who “just know how it works”.
• Planning takes days, and changes take hours.
• Reporting is delayed because it’s stitched together manually.

Your cost base is drifting

• Overtime is rising, but nobody can clearly explain why.
• Agency use is creeping up due to poor forward visibility.
• Leave and training aren’t planned into capacity, so you’re always short.

You can’t confidently answer basic questions

• What is our true utilisation by role and region?
• What is our demand vs capacity gap over the next 8–12 weeks?
• What proportion of work is non-productive (admin, travel, rework, idle time)?
• How often do we break award rules — even unintentionally?

Service reliability is inconsistent

• Missed shifts, late starts, unfilled shifts.
• High cancellation/reallocation rates.
• Wait times blow out during predictable peaks.

You’re changing your operating model

• Growth, acquisitions, new regions, new service lines.
• New funding models or compliance requirements.
• Centralising rostering, introducing hubs, or changing team structures.

Your current vendor or platform can’t keep up

• Limited configurability for rules.
• Poor mobile experience.
• Weak integration options.
• High support costs with slow response.

If two or more of these are true, it’s usually worth moving from “we should look at systems” to a structured selection process — and doing it before the situation becomes urgent.

The system landscape: what types of solutions exist?

There isn’t one “best” rostering and scheduling system. There are categories — and the right one depends on your service model, workforce type, scale, and complexity.

1) Workforce Management (WFM) suites

Best when you need: sophisticated rostering, compliance, time & attendance, intraday management (especially in contact centres), forecasting, and optimisation.

Typical strengths:

• advanced rules engines
• forecasting and intraday scheduling
• mature reporting and audit trails
• workforce self-service features

Considerations:

• can be heavy to implement
• requires clean data and disciplined processes
• integration effort can be material

2) HRIS / ERP “modules”

Best when you need: alignment with HR and payroll, and your rostering requirements are moderate.

Typical strengths:

• single source of truth for employee data
• tighter payroll integration
• simpler vendor landscape

Considerations:

• rostering capability can be basic depending on platform/module
• limited optimisation for complex service delivery
• may not handle nuanced scheduling constraints well

3) Industry platforms (care management, field service, etc.)

Best when you need: rostering and scheduling tightly embedded in service delivery workflows.

Examples of where these show up:

• aged care and home care (client plans, visits, compliance)
• disability support (participant schedules, travel, billing)
• field services (jobs, dispatch, SLAs, mobile execution)

Typical strengths:

• designed around the service workflow (not just shifts)
• strong mobile execution support
• often includes client-facing or service compliance features

Considerations:

• workforce planning capability may be limited
• optimisation quality varies
• reporting can be weaker than dedicated analytics stacks

4) Lightweight rostering tools

Best when you need: shift creation, availability, swap requests, and basic compliance — often for smaller or single-site operations.

Typical strengths:

• fast to deploy
• easy user experience
• lower cost

Considerations:

• may not scale to multi-region complexity
• limited integration and forecasting
• optimisation and scenario planning can be minimal

5) Low-code / “augmentation” (when replacement isn’t feasible yet)

Sometimes the right answer isn’t ripping out your core system immediately. It’s building targeted automation around it to remove the manual burden and create better visibility.

This might look like:

• automating data flows and approvals
• digitising scheduling requests and exceptions
• building dashboards and KPI packs
• creating “guardrails” and prompts that stop bad decisions early

Platforms like Microsoft Power Platform are often used for this kind of pragmatic uplift — particularly when legacy platforms are locked in for a period, or the business case for full replacement needs time.

So… how do you pick the right system?

Here’s the approach we recommend when organisations want a decision they won’t regret in 18 months.

Step 1: Start with outcomes, not features

Write down the outcomes in plain language. Examples:

• reduce overtime reliance while maintaining service levels
• improve roster stability (fewer changes after publish)
• increase utilisation without burning out teams
• reduce unfilled shifts and missed visits
• reduce admin time spent building and adjusting rosters
• improve fairness and staff experience (availability, swaps, preferences)
• improve compliance confidence and auditability

If you can’t clearly articulate outcomes, you’ll end up comparing vendor demos based on “cool features” instead of what matters.

Step 2: Map your workforce value chain end-to-end

Most rostering problems aren’t caused by the rostering screen. They’re caused upstream.

Map the chain:

1. Demand forecasting (what work is coming?)
2. Recruitment and agency planning (how do we fill gaps?)
3. Capacity planning (what hours do we truly have available?)
4. Service constraints (rules, skills, coverage)
5. Rostering and scheduling optimisation (publishing shifts and assignments)
6. Daily operational management (exceptions and reallocation)

This reveals where decisions are currently made late, where data is missing, and where technology should intervene.

Step 3: Decide your planning horizons and operating rhythm

Systems differ in how well they support different time horizons:

• Strategic (12–24 months): workforce mix, growth scenarios, budget alignment
• Tactical (3–12 months): recruitment targets, leave planning, training cohorts, capacity vs demand reconciliation
• Operational (0–12 weeks): roster publishing, shift allocation, daily adjustments

If your biggest problem is a tactical one (e.g., recurring capacity gaps due to leave, training, shrinkage, or recruitment lag), you might need stronger workforce planning capability — not just better shift templates.

Step 4: Get brutally clear on your constraints (Australia-specific)

This is where many selections fall apart.

Document constraints like:

• award interpretations and EBA clauses
• fatigue management rules (min rest, max consecutive shifts, max hours)
• skill mix and supervision requirements
• client continuity requirements (same worker preferences)
• travel time and geographic constraints
• qualification compliance (tickets, licences, training currency)
• union or local site rules where relevant

Then test these in vendor evaluation using real scenarios. Not “can your system do awards?” — but “show me this clause working in a roster with these edge cases”.

Step 5: Identify your “must integrate” systems

Most workforce tools fail when they become another data island.

Common integration points include:

• payroll / time and attendance
• HR master data
• service delivery systems (client management, case management, work orders)
• finance and budgeting
• CRM / intake systems
• identity management (SSO)
• reporting platforms (Power BI, data warehouse)

A helpful question is: where does the truth live today, and where should it live tomorrow?

Step 6: Score systems against your service model (not your org chart)

A contact centre workforce is not the same as home care. A warehouse roster is not the same as a clinical team roster.

Make sure your evaluation reflects:

• the nature of demand (predictable vs volatile)
• the work unit (calls, visits, tasks, jobs, shifts)
• the workforce shape (full-time vs casual heavy, contractors, agency)
• the mobility profile (single site vs distributed, high travel, routing needed)
• the service level commitments (SLAs, compliance, continuity)

Step 7: Decide how much optimisation you actually need

Some organisations genuinely need advanced optimisation and automated scheduling. Others mostly need:

• better templates and rules
• earlier visibility of gaps
• better exception workflows
• cleaner data and reporting

Be careful not to buy “maximum sophistication” when the organisation isn’t ready to operationalise it. The best system is the one you will actually use properly.

Step 8: Don’t underestimate user experience

If frontline managers avoid the system, it will fail.

Look for:

• mobile experience for staff (availability, swaps, leave, notifications)
• simple workflows for managers
• clear audit trails for exceptions
• fast performance (especially for large rosters)
• explainable decisions (why the optimiser suggested X)

Step 9: Build the business case from real drivers

Your business case should connect system capability to measurable levers, such as:

• overtime and penalty rates
• agency and contingent labour spend
• roster stability (rework and admin effort)
• travel time and kilometres (for mobile workforces)
• utilisation and productive time
• missed shifts / missed visits / SLA breaches
• recruitment outcomes (if planning improves lead time)
• staff turnover and burnout indicators (where measurable)

You don’t need perfect precision — but you do need defensible logic and a clear baseline.

A practical example (anonymised): time saved isn’t “soft” when it compounds

In one engagement, an organisation redesigned and automated parts of the scheduling workflow using process changes and a low-code approach. The scheduling effort per booking dropped from around 126 minutes to 29 minutes — roughly a 77% reduction in admin time for that activity.

That kind of reduction matters because it compounds:

• schedulers spend less time on repetitive steps and more time on exception management and service quality
• leaders get faster visibility of performance
• operational teams experience less chaos from manual rework

The point isn’t that every organisation will get the same result. The point is that the value often sits in the workflow and data flow as much as the system itself — and you can quantify it when you measure properly.

Common traps (and how to avoid them)

Trap 1: Selecting software before you define your future operating model

If you haven’t decided what should be centralised vs local, who owns workforce planning, and what decisions happen in what cadence, you’ll end up configuring the system to match today’s dysfunction.

Trap 2: Treating rostering as a standalone function

Rostering is downstream of demand, recruitment, capacity, and constraints. If upstream inputs remain messy, rostering will remain reactive.

Trap 3: Over-customising early

Customisation feels like progress, but it often locks in complexity and makes upgrades painful. Prioritise configuration, standard workflows, and disciplined data.

Trap 4: Under-investing in change management

Even good systems fail if:

• supervisors don’t trust the rules
• staff don’t adopt self-service
• exceptions are handled outside the platform
• reporting isn’t used to manage performance

Trap 5: Not validating award/EBA logic with real test cases

Vendor demos are rarely honest about edge cases. Build a test pack from your most painful scenarios and insist on walkthroughs.

What to look for in vendor demos (a simple checklist)

When you’re watching demos, steer away from “here’s our dashboard” and into scenarios that reflect real life.

Ask vendors to demonstrate:

• building a roster with your award rules, including tricky clauses
• handling last-minute leave and finding compliant replacements
• applying skill mix rules and supervision constraints
• publishing rosters and managing swaps/availability
• showing audit trails for exceptions and approvals
• forecasting demand (where relevant) and translating into required capacity
• integration approach (how data flows in/out)
• reporting pack: the KPIs you will actually manage weekly

And importantly: ask what the system looks like when things go wrong — because that’s when you’ll live in it.

How Trace Consultants can help

Selecting a workforce planning, rostering and scheduling platform is a multi-disciplinary job. It touches operations, HR, payroll, finance, service delivery, IT, and workforce strategy. Many organisations get stuck because each function views the problem through its own lens.

Trace Consultants helps organisations navigate this end-to-end, with a focus on practical outcomes — cost, service, and workforce sustainability.

Our typical support includes:

1) Current-state assessment and baseline

• map processes end-to-end (not just rostering)
• quantify admin effort, rework, overtime drivers, agency reliance, and service impacts
• identify broken data flows and decision bottlenecks

2) Requirements that reflect reality

• translate awards/EBAs and operating constraints into testable requirements
• define planning horizons and operating rhythms
• clarify what must be standardised vs flexible by region/site

3) Market scan and shortlisting

• match solution types to your service model and maturity
• develop a shortlist based on fit, scalability, integration, and local support

4) Structured selection and demo scoring

• create scenario-based demo scripts (including edge cases)
• score vendors consistently across functionality, usability, reporting, and implementation risk
• support commercial evaluation and procurement

5) Business case development

• build a defensible business case linked to measurable levers
• model the trade-offs: cost vs service vs workforce experience
• establish benefits realisation metrics upfront

6) Implementation and change support

• PMO and delivery governance
• operating model design (roles, decision rights, centralisation)
• KPI design and performance cadence
• pragmatic automation where full replacement isn’t possible yet (e.g., Power Platform workflows, dashboards, data capture)

The end goal isn’t “a new system”. It’s a planning and scheduling capability your organisation can run confidently — with less manual effort, better service outcomes, and a workforce model that’s sustainable.

FAQs people ask (and the honest answers)

“Do we need AI-driven scheduling?”

Maybe — but don’t start there. If your data and rules aren’t clean, “AI” just automates confusion. Get the fundamentals right first (demand, capacity, constraints), then add optimisation.

“Can we keep Excel and just improve process?”

Sometimes, yes — especially for smaller teams or as an interim step. But Excel usually breaks at scale: version control, auditability, integration, and real-time scheduling are hard to manage sustainably.

“How long does selection take?”

A disciplined selection (requirements → shortlist → demos → scoring → decision) typically takes weeks to a few months depending on complexity. The bigger time sink is usually the prep work: baseline data, constraints, and stakeholder alignment.

“What’s the biggest reason implementations fail?”

Lack of operating model clarity and lack of adoption. If roles, rules, escalation paths, and KPIs aren’t clear, the system becomes optional — and optional systems don’t deliver benefits.

“Should we centralise rostering?”

Sometimes. Centralisation can drive consistency and scale — but it can also disconnect scheduling decisions from local reality if you don’t design feedback loops properly. The right answer is often a hybrid model with clear guardrails.

A simple way to sanity-check your decision

Before signing anything, ask yourself:

1. Does this system fit our service model and workforce type?
2. Can we demonstrate our award/EBA rules working in real scenarios?
3. Do we understand the data flows and integration effort?
4. Have we defined who makes what decisions, and when?
5. Do we have a baseline and a benefits plan we can measure?
6. Are we ready to operationalise the change — not just install software?

If you can answer “yes” to most of these, you’re in a strong position to pick a system that actually delivers.

Closing thought

Rostering is often described as the heartbeat of service organisations. When it’s healthy, everything downstream has a chance: service reliability improves, staff experience stabilises, and costs stop drifting upward unnoticed.

If you’re considering a system upgrade — or you suspect your current platform is limiting performance — the best time to review your approach is before the next growth step, compliance change, or workforce crunch forces a rushed decision.

If you’d like a practical, vendor-agnostic view of your options (and what will deliver the biggest impact fastest), Trace Consultants can help you shape the roadmap, build the business case, and run a selection that stands up to scrutiny — from the frontline to the CFO.

‍

Workforce planning, rostering and scheduling optimisation: bringing down cost base while improving service and care outcomes.

In health, aged care, disability and community services, workforce challenges don’t show up politely.

They show up on a Friday night when the roster breaks. They show up as unplanned overtime, urgent agency calls, and managers juggling shifts instead of leading teams. They show up as service cancellations, missed visits, delayed discharges, and frustrated clinicians and carers doing their best inside a system that’s constantly reacting.

Then the question becomes unavoidable: how do we get the right people, in the right place, at the right time—without the cost base running away?

Across Australia and New Zealand, providers are searching for practical answers to:

• workforce planning optimisation
• rostering and scheduling improvement
• reducing overtime and agency spend
• demand-based staffing models
• workforce operating model design
• NDIS scheduling and route optimisation (especially for in-home services)

This article lays out a pragmatic playbook for improving workforce planning, rostering and scheduling—one that respects the reality of clinical care and frontline work, and focuses on outcomes that matter: service reliability, workforce wellbeing, and sustainable cost efficiency.

Why workforce planning is now a board-level issue

For most care providers, labour is the largest cost line. But it’s not just the size of the spend—it’s the volatility.

When workforce planning is weak, costs rise in ways that are hard to control:

• overtime becomes structural
• agency spend fills capability gaps
• backfill and unplanned leave creates instability
• managers spend time firefighting instead of improving care delivery
• service delivery becomes inconsistent, damaging trust and reputation

At the same time, community expectations are rising, and funding models are tightening. Providers are being asked to deliver better outcomes with less slack in the system.

That’s why workforce planning, rostering and scheduling is one of the highest-leverage improvement programs available—when it’s done as a system, not as a quick roster tweak.

The symptoms that tell you it’s time for a workforce planning reset

If any of these feel familiar, you’re likely carrying hidden cost and service risk:

1) Overtime is “just how we operate”

A bit of overtime is normal. But when it’s routine, it’s usually covering for:

• roster misalignment with demand
• inadequate staffing mix
• poor leave planning
• inefficient shift structures

2) Agency spend keeps creeping up

Agency can be necessary, but sustained dependence often means:

• recruitment and onboarding bottlenecks
• poor roster stability
• inability to flex the workforce without premium labour

3) Service delivery feels fragile

• cancellations and missed visits
• late starts and handover issues
• frequent shift swaps and short-notice changes
• staff burnout and turnover

4) Rosters are built around habit, not demand

Rostering often gets inherited: “we’ve always done it this way”. Demand changes, but the roster template stays the same.

5) Managers spend too much time rostering

When managers are stuck in spreadsheets and phone calls, it’s a sign the scheduling system—and governance—needs uplift.

6) There’s no single view of workforce demand vs supply

Different teams hold different numbers:

• service demand
• funded hours
• allocated hours
• delivered hours
• leave and backfill requirements

Without a single view, you can’t manage the gap.

The core idea: workforce should be planned like supply and demand

In supply chain, you don’t plan inventory and capacity by gut feel. You forecast demand, understand constraints, and balance supply to meet service outcomes at the lowest sustainable cost.

Workforce planning is the same problem:

• demand = care needs and service requirements by time and location
• supply = available workforce hours by role, skill, and contract type
• constraints = industrial rules, fatigue, travel time, skill mix, compliance, preferences

When you treat workforce like a supply-and-demand system, the levers become clear:

• improve demand forecasting
• smooth demand where possible
• build the right workforce mix and flexibility
• design rosters that match demand patterns
• reduce waste (travel, handovers, admin overhead)
• improve visibility so decisions get made earlier

Demand planning for care: where most workforce programs start (or stall)

“Demand” in care is not a single number. It varies by:

• time of day and day of week
• location and travel constraints
• patient acuity and support needs
• service model (inpatient, community, home care)
• seasonality (winter demand, public holidays, leave cycles)

A practical demand planning approach includes:

1) Defining the demand unit that matters

Depending on the service:

• inpatient: admissions, bed days, acuity, theatre lists, discharge patterns
• ED: presentations by hour/day, triage categories
• aged care: resident needs and care minutes
• NDIS/community: booked services, plan utilisation, cancellation rates, travel times

2) Translating demand into workforce requirements

Demand alone doesn’t create staffing needs. You need a conversion mechanism:

• care minutes or workload drivers
• skill requirements (registered nurse, enrolled nurse, allied health, support worker)
• supervision requirements
• compliance constraints (medication rounds, observation frequency, incident response)

3) Building visibility of peaks and constraints

The goal is not perfect prediction. It’s early visibility so the roster can be built proactively.

Workforce mix: full-time, part-time, casual, agency (and why it matters)

One of the biggest drivers of cost and stability is workforce composition.

A sustainable model balances:

• stable core coverage (FTE base)
• planned flexibility (part-time and casual pools aligned to peaks)
• contingency mechanisms (internal bank, contingent panels)
• controlled agency use (as a last resort, not default)

Common issues include:

• too much “fixed” coverage at the wrong times
• casual pools that exist but aren’t scheduled early enough
• agency used because the internal process is too slow
• skill mix misalignment (e.g., overusing higher-cost labour for tasks that don’t require it)

Optimising workforce mix is often one of the fastest ways to reduce premium labour spend while improving service reliability.

Rostering and scheduling: where good strategy turns into daily reality

Rostering is where workforce planning either becomes real—or gets ignored.

What makes a roster “good”?

A good roster:

• matches demand patterns (time, location, skill mix)
• minimises premium labour (overtime, penalties, agency)
• supports continuity of care
• respects fatigue and wellbeing
• reduces unproductive time (travel, idle time, duplicated handovers)
• is explainable and defensible

Why rosters fail in practice

They fail when:

• templates don’t reflect real demand variability
• shift lengths don’t match workload patterns
• staff preferences aren’t considered at all (leading to churn)
• leave planning is reactive
• scheduling is done too late, forcing premium labour decisions

Shift design is an underused lever

Many organisations only adjust “who” is on the roster, not “what the shifts should look like”.

Redesigning shift patterns can unlock:

• better peak coverage
• reduced handover overhead
• improved continuity
• reduced overtime spillover

It needs careful consultation, but it’s often a high-impact lever.

Scheduling in community and home services: the travel problem

For NDIS providers, aged care in-home services, and community health, the roster isn’t just a staffing problem—it’s a routing problem.

Common cost and service drivers include:

• inefficient run sheets and excessive travel time
• late cancellations and no-shows
• mismatched skills to client needs
• inconsistent client-carer matching (continuity impacts)
• fragmented scheduling across teams or regions

Optimisation here often involves:

• demand visibility and booking discipline
• route optimisation principles (even before advanced tools)
• zoning and clustering of clients
• setting realistic travel assumptions
• building buffer capacity in a controlled way
• using internal casual pools proactively for variability

Even small improvements in travel efficiency can materially reduce paid time that doesn’t translate into care minutes.

The operating model: centralised vs decentralised workforce planning

Another big determinant of success is where accountability sits.

Decentralised models

Pros:

• local knowledge and responsiveness
  Cons:
• inconsistency, duplication, limited leverage of data, heavier admin burden on managers

Centralised or hybrid models

Pros:

• standardised processes, better analytics, stronger governance
  Cons:
• risk of “distance” from frontline realities if designed poorly

The best answer is often a hybrid:

• local clinical leadership retained
• centralised planning support, analytics, scheduling tools, and governance
• clear decision rights and escalation paths

The metrics that actually improve behaviour

Be careful: workforce metrics can drive unintended behaviour. The goal is better service and sustainable cost, not gaming.

A practical dashboard includes:

Service and care outcomes

• missed visits / cancellations
• response times (where relevant)
• continuity of care measures
• patient/client satisfaction indicators (where captured)

Workforce efficiency

• roster fill rate
• overtime hours and drivers
• agency usage and triggers
• utilisation (paid hours vs direct care hours)
• travel time proportion (community services)

Workforce wellbeing and stability

• leave trends (planned vs unplanned)
• turnover and vacancy rates
• fatigue indicators (excess consecutive shifts, long shifts)

Financial

• labour cost per unit of service (care minute, visit, bed day, etc.)
• premium labour cost as % of total
• cost-to-serve by region/service line (where possible)

A practical 8–12 week workforce planning and rostering improvement program

If you want a time-boxed approach that doesn’t become a never-ending “review”, this structure works well.

Phase 1: Diagnose and baseline (2–3 weeks)

• map current planning and rostering processes
• baseline demand patterns by time/location
• quantify overtime, agency, cancellations, and drivers
• review workforce mix and leave practices
• identify quick wins and systemic constraints

Output: a clear fact base and priority list.

Phase 2: Redesign the planning framework (3–4 weeks)

• define demand-to-labour conversion approach
• build workforce mix strategy and flex mechanisms
• redesign roster templates and shift patterns (where needed)
• define governance cadence, decision rights, and escalation paths
• design reporting and KPI dashboards

Output: a fit-for-purpose workforce planning and rostering model.

Phase 3: Pilot and embed (3–5 weeks)

• pilot in a region/service line
• train managers and schedulers
• refine the approach based on frontline feedback
• implement governance and performance rhythm
• prepare for wider rollout

Output: a working model that staff actually adopt.

Quick wins in 30 days (without waiting for a full transformation)

If you need immediate impact, these actions are often safe and effective:

• Create a single weekly view of demand vs rostered supply (even if manual at first)
• Identify top overtime drivers by team and time period
• Implement an “agency gate” (approval + root-cause tracking)
• Build a proactive casual pool schedule for known peaks
• Tighten leave planning discipline for critical periods
• Review travel time assumptions and zoning in community services
• Standardise shift swap and backfill processes
• Reduce rework by clarifying handover expectations and roles

Quick wins aren’t the end goal, but they stabilise the system and reduce premium labour leakage quickly.

How Trace Consultants can help: workforce planning, rostering and scheduling optimisation

Workforce improvement programs only work when they respect clinical reality and frontline pressures—while still bringing discipline to planning, governance and data.

Trace Consultants supports Australian and New Zealand health, aged care and NDIS organisations to improve service reliability and reduce cost base through:

1) Workforce planning diagnostic and value-at-stake assessment

• baseline demand vs supply and cost drivers
• overtime and agency root-cause analysis
• workforce mix assessment
• prioritised roadmap with quick wins and longer-term improvements

2) Demand-based workforce planning framework design

• demand units and workload drivers
• demand-to-labour conversion logic
• scenario planning for peaks and disruption
• governance model and decision rights

3) Rostering and scheduling uplift (process + operating model)

• roster template redesign and shift pattern optimisation
• scheduling workflows and escalation paths
• centralised/hybrid operating model design
• manager enablement and training

4) Community and in-home scheduling optimisation

• routing and zoning improvements
• booking discipline and cancellation management
• continuity-of-care balancing with efficiency
• practical optimisation approaches even before tool changes

5) Technology enablement (where appropriate)

• requirements for rostering and scheduling tools
• reporting and data model design
• workflow automation opportunities to reduce admin burden
• implementation support to embed sustainable ways of working

Trace’s focus is on practical adoption: building a workforce planning and rostering system that is used, trusted, and maintained—not a one-off spreadsheet exercise.

Frequently asked questions

Can we reduce labour costs without hurting care outcomes?

Yes—when you reduce waste and premium labour, not core care capacity. Common levers include:

• demand alignment
• shift design
• workforce mix optimisation
• travel efficiency improvements
• improved scheduling discipline

Where do savings usually come from?

Typically from reducing:

• overtime driven by roster misalignment
• agency dependency
• unproductive travel and idle time
• rework and scheduling inefficiency
• avoidable backfill and last-minute changes

Do we need a new rostering system?

Sometimes—but many organisations get meaningful improvements from process and governance changes first. Technology works best when it supports a redesigned operating rhythm.

How do we avoid burning out managers during the change?

By:

• simplifying scheduling workflows
• centralising admin-heavy tasks where possible
• improving visibility and decision-making earlier
• using pilots and staged rollout rather than “big bang”

The bottom line: better rosters are better outcomes

In care services, workforce is not just a cost—it’s the engine of service quality, continuity, and trust. But without strong workforce planning and scheduling, even the best teams end up stuck in reactive mode.

A practical reset can reduce premium labour spend, improve roster stability, and lift service reliability—while giving managers and frontline teams a system that supports them, rather than drains them.

If you want to explore what a workforce planning and rostering optimisation program could look like for your organisation, Trace Consultants can help—from diagnostics and quick wins through to redesigning operating models and embedding sustainable scheduling rhythms.

‍

The Rostering Puzzle: Strategic Workforce Planning for Variable Demand

By Tim Fagan, Senior Manager, Trace Consultants

If you’ve ever walked into a morning handover and felt the tension before anyone’s said a word, you’ll know exactly what I mean by the rostering puzzle.

The phones are already ringing. A few people have called in sick. Demand has spiked in a way last week’s roster didn’t predict. Someone’s asked for compassionate leave. A new compliance rule has landed. And the service target everyone is measured on—response time, waitlists, patient ratios, visit windows, incident coverage—doesn’t care that humans are not Lego blocks.

In Australia and New Zealand, this problem has become harder, not easier. Labour markets have been volatile. Costs have moved. Industrial relations and leave compliance are evolving. Australia’s Annual Wage Review increased the National Minimum Wage and modern award minimum wages by 3.5% from 1 July 2025, adding real pressure to already tight service budgets.  And in sectors like aged care, award changes flowing from the Aged Care Work Value Case have introduced staged changes and pay rate increases (with key changes taking effect from January 2025 and additional increases from October 2025).  Meanwhile, broader workplace reforms under the “Closing Loopholes” laws have rolled out in phases between late 2023 and August 2025, changing the IR landscape that rostering teams operate within.

New Zealand organisations have their own complexity curve. Leave compliance has been a long-running headache for employers, and Cabinet decisions in August 2025 signalled a move toward new employment leave legislation intended to replace the Holidays Act 2003 with a simpler model.  (If you’ve lived through Holidays Act remediation projects, you don’t need me to explain why “simpler and more workable” gets attention.)

So here’s the key takeaway I want to land:

Strategic workforce planning and rostering is about meeting service targets while managing the specific complexities of shifts and labour costs in a volatile Australian market—across aged care, hospitals, and other labour-intensive organisations.

This isn’t a “get better at scheduling” pep talk. It’s a practical guide to lifting rostering out of reactive firefighting and into a controlled, measurable capability—without losing the human element that service organisations run on.

Why rostering feels harder than it “should” be

Most organisations treat rostering as an operational function: build the roster, fill gaps, approve swaps, manage overtime, repeat.

But in reality, rostering is the point where three forces collide:

1. Demand volatility (what the service needs)
2. Workforce supply constraints (who is available, skilled, and safe to deploy)
3. Cost and compliance (awards, fatigue, leave rules, budgets, industrial arrangements)

When those three are stable, rostering is straightforward.

When they’re not—and in many sectors they aren’t—rostering becomes a daily puzzle with moving pieces. The “best” roster on paper can fail in the first two hours of the shift if it doesn’t reflect how demand actually behaves.

Demand isn’t just volume. It’s shape.

Aged care demand isn’t evenly spread across a day. Hospitals don’t experience “average” ED arrivals. Facilities teams don’t get breakdowns according to neat weekly patterns. Call centres don’t receive a perfectly smooth call rate. Hospitality doesn’t staff to the average Friday; it staffs to the Friday where a major event is on, plus a bus tour turns up early.

The shape of demand—peaks, troughs, seasonality, event-driven surges—matters as much as the total volume.

Supply is more than headcount.

In labour-intensive services, capacity isn’t “number of people on payroll”. It’s:

• skills and scope (who can do what safely)
• fatigue limits (who shouldn’t do more)
• location and travel (who can get where, and when)
• shift preferences and retention risks (who will quit if this becomes unsustainable)
• compliance (minimum breaks, maximum hours, award rules)
• reliability (availability, sickness trends, unplanned leave)

If you’ve got the headcount but the wrong skill mix, you still don’t have capacity.

Cost is no longer just “overtime vs base”

Cost is now a broader system problem. Wage increases and award changes flow through base rates, allowances, penalties, classifications, and career structures.  In some sectors, cost pressures are compounded by agency reliance, backfill practices, and the hidden cost of turnover. And reforms that alter the employment landscape can shift how organisations think about casualisation, labour hire, and workforce models.

The difference between rostering and workforce planning

A useful distinction:

• Rostering is the weekly (or fortnightly) act of allocating people to shifts.
• Strategic workforce planning is the ongoing discipline of ensuring you have the right workforce capacity, composition, and deployment model to meet demand—now and into the future.

If you only roster, you’re forever reacting.

If you plan strategically, rostering becomes the execution arm of a deliberate design.

In practical terms, strategic workforce planning answers questions like:

• What demand do we need to meet, and how variable is it?
• What service targets are non-negotiable (and which are negotiable)?
• What workforce mix do we need (full-time, part-time, casual, agency, contractors)?
• Where are the structural bottlenecks (skills, locations, time windows)?
• What should “good” look like in terms of overtime, leave cover, and utilisation?
• Which constraints are real, and which are self-imposed by legacy policies?

Then rostering becomes less about guesswork and more about optimising within known rules.

A practical framework for variable demand rostering

When demand is volatile, you don’t win by chasing perfection. You win by building a system that is resilient, measurable, and fair.

Here’s a framework we use across labour-intensive environments.

1) Start with the service promise (and be brutally clear)

Service organisations often carry a quiet contradiction:

• “We will meet our service targets.”
• “We must reduce labour costs.”
• “We must protect wellbeing and retention.”

You can pursue all three, but only if you define what “service targets” actually mean.

Examples of service promises:

• Aged care: visit windows, continuity of care, safe ratios, response times for incidents
• Hospitals: safe staffing, surge capability, theatre utilisation, ward coverage, ED flow
• Local government: response times for critical maintenance and emergencies
• Facilities: compliance coverage, after-hours readiness, fault response
• Contact centres: answer times, abandonment rates, quality scores

Once you define the promise, you can translate it into demand drivers and coverage requirements.

If you can’t articulate the service promise in plain language, your roster will always be a compromise that nobody owns.

2) Understand demand properly (not just averages)

Most rosters are built off historical averages or manager intuition.

That’s not enough when demand is variable.

Better demand understanding includes:

• peak day vs average day analysis
• intra-day patterns (hourly shape, not daily totals)
• event impacts (public holidays, school holidays, major events, planned outages)
• seasonal shifts
• lead indicators (referrals, bookings, call volumes, admissions forecasts)
• “failure demand” (rework and repeat tasks caused by poor first-time resolution)

A useful question to ask: What proportion of today’s work was predictable a week ago?
If the answer is “most of it”, your issue might be process, not forecasting. If the answer is “hardly any”, your workforce model likely needs more flexibility and faster redeployment mechanisms.

3) Translate demand into workload, and workload into staffing

Demand signals only become useful when converted into workload.

Workload is the combination of:

• task volumes
• task durations
• travel time (where relevant)
• variability (standard deviation matters)
• non-productive time (handover, admin, safety checks)
• escalation overheads

From there, staffing needs can be modelled by:

• coverage requirements (minimums, ratios, “always-on” coverage)
• productive hours per shift after breaks
• skill mix rules
• fatigue and safety rules
• allowance for unplanned absence (shrinkage)

This is where a lot of rosters fall over: they roster to headcount, not workload. The result is either chronic understaffing (and overtime) or chronic overstaffing (and frustration about cost).

4) Design a workforce mix that matches volatility

Variable demand is not solved purely by “better rostering software”. It’s solved by aligning the workforce model to demand characteristics.

Common levers include:

• more flexible part-time structures (instead of forcing full-time patterns everywhere)
• planned “float” roles (not as a punishment, but as a designed capability)
• split shifts or staggered starts (where appropriate and agreed)
• internal banks/pools for backfill
• cross-skilling to increase redeployability
• clearer rules for overtime and call-in (to avoid ad hoc inequity)
• agency use as a last resort, with controls and learning loops

In aged care and hospitals, this can also include explicit surge capacity models—because pretending surges won’t happen doesn’t make them disappear. It just shifts the impact onto people at the worst possible moment.

5) Build rosters around constraints, but challenge the right ones

Constraints are real in service environments. The trick is distinguishing:

• constraints that protect safety and fairness, and
• constraints that exist because “we’ve always done it that way”.

Common constraints worth testing:

• overly rigid shift start times that don’t match demand peaks
• “everyone rotates equally” rules that ignore skill needs
• blanket rules about weekends/nights that drive perverse outcomes
• cumbersome approval processes for swaps and minor adjustments
• policies that force managers to hoard staff “just in case”
• lack of clarity on what can be flexed during surge conditions

When constraints are unclear, rosters become negotiation documents instead of operational tools.

The rostering realities in aged care

Aged care rostering is particularly complex because demand is both:

• predictable (regular care needs), and
• unpredictable (incidents, acuity changes, staff absences, family needs)

Add to that:

• workforce shortages in many markets
• wage and award changes flowing through classifications and pay structures
• heavy compliance load and documentation requirements
• high emotional labour and burnout risk
• continuity of care expectations (relationships matter)

In this environment, “just add casuals” isn’t a strategy. It can erode continuity and increase training burden.

What tends to work better:

• designing a stable core roster that covers predictable workload
• building a structured flexibility layer (bank/pool, planned floats)
• using demand signals to plan rather than react (e.g., known high-risk periods)
• simplifying admin so frontline staff spend time on care, not paperwork
• making fairness explicit (so overtime and unpopular shifts don’t become political)

There’s also a wider funding and compliance context. Government guidance has been issued to support providers in implementing wage increases linked to the Aged Care Work Value Case.  This is a reminder that rostering is not just “operations”—it’s tied directly to funding, compliance, and workforce sustainability.

The rostering realities in hospitals

Hospitals are where rostering meets complexity at speed.

Demand is volatile (ED arrivals, bed flow, theatre overruns), and staffing is constrained by:

• strict skill requirements
• patient safety and minimum coverage needs
• fatigue and overtime limits
• industrial arrangements and agreements
• the operational reality that handovers, breaks, and supervision take time

The common trap is to treat rosters as fixed artefacts. But in hospitals, the real game is dynamic capacity management—knowing what levers exist when the day deviates from plan.

Effective approaches often include:

• rosters built with explicit surge rules (what triggers escalation, who is contacted, what gets deferred)
• better use of predictive indicators (bed management, elective schedules, known demand drivers)
• clear governance around overtime and additional shifts (safe, fair, and consistent)
• skill-based allocation rather than purely “equal rotation”
• realistic staffing models that include non-patient-facing workload

And importantly: a shared view of demand, workforce, and constraints—not separate spreadsheets living in silos.

“Other labour intensive organisations”: where the same puzzle shows up

The rostering puzzle isn’t limited to healthcare.

You see the same structural dynamics in:

• disability and community services (variable demand, travel, skills)
• hospitality and venues (event-driven peaks, late changes, casual workforce)
• manufacturing and processing (shift coverage, overtime, fatigue, absenteeism)
• warehousing and logistics (seasonality, cut-off times, volume spikes)
• facilities and maintenance (reactive work + compliance coverage)
• contact centres (volume variability + quality requirements)
• emergency services support functions (readiness + cost control)

The specifics differ, but the underlying challenge is the same:

How do we meet service targets when demand moves—and do it without blowing out labour cost or burning out the workforce?

The cost side: labour costs aren’t just “too much overtime”

Overtime is the visible symptom, but the underlying cost drivers are usually structural:

• mismatch between roster shape and demand shape
• poor shrinkage planning (sick leave, training, admin time)
• excessive reliance on agency due to lack of internal flexibility
• rework and inefficiency that inflate workload
• turnover that creates permanent training overhead
• fragmented scheduling practices across sites/teams
• lack of real-time visibility, leading to “just in case” staffing

Wage increases and award changes amplify these issues. A 3.5% wage increase flows through every hour you roster.  If your roster design is inefficient, that inefficiency just got more expensive.

This is why strategic workforce planning matters: it targets the system, not just the symptom.

Technology: helpful when it supports decisions, harmful when it replaces them

Rostering technology can be powerful. It can also become shelfware if it’s not aligned to the operating model.

Good rostering tech supports:

• demand-based staffing models
• skill and credential constraints
• fair allocation rules
• shift bids/swaps with governance
• fatigue management and compliance checks
• real-time coverage visibility
• reporting that managers actually trust

But technology won’t fix:

• unclear service targets
• broken handovers
• inconsistent role expectations
• lack of accountability for staffing decisions
• policies that incentivise gaming
• poor data definitions (e.g., what counts as “productive time”)

In New Zealand, leave complexity has been a recurring pain point for payroll and rostering, and reforms are explicitly trying to reduce uncertainty and compliance burden.  That context matters when selecting systems and designing processes—because “leave” is never just an HR function in a shift-based environment. It’s a rostering constraint that affects coverage and cost every day.

The human side: fairness is a performance lever

Rostering discussions often get stuck on numbers: hours, FTE, overtime cost.

But fairness is a major driver of performance, retention, and discretionary effort.

If staff believe the roster is:

• inconsistent,
• biased,
• opaque, or
• constantly changed without consultation,

you’ll pay for it in absenteeism, turnover, and conflict.

Fairness doesn’t mean “everyone gets the same”. It means:

• the rules are clear,
• the reasoning is understood,
• the trade-offs are transparent,
• and people feel respected.

In practical terms, that can look like:

• published rules for overtime allocation
• transparent shift swap processes
• clear escalation triggers for surge rosters
• genuine consultation on roster changes
• rostering decisions supported by data, not favouritism

A “fair enough” roster is often more sustainable than a theoretically optimal one that nobody trusts.

A simple maturity model: where are you today?

If you want a quick self-check, consider these stages:

Stage 1: Reactive rostering

• built on intuition
• constant last-minute changes
• overtime and agency are default fixes
• limited visibility

Stage 2: Rules-based rostering

• basic compliance is embedded
• shift templates exist
• still relies heavily on manual intervention
• demand is loosely understood

Stage 3: Demand-informed rostering

• demand patterns drive shift design
• workload modelling exists
• shrinkage is planned
• clear governance on changes

Stage 4: Integrated workforce planning

• workforce mix is designed for volatility
• skills and training pipelines align to demand
• scenario planning is routine
• technology supports decisions end-to-end

Most organisations sit somewhere between Stage 1 and Stage 3. The good news is you don’t need to jump straight to Stage 4 to see benefits. Often, the biggest gains come from moving one stage forward with discipline.

What “good” looks like: measurable outcomes that matter

Rather than promising magic, it’s better to focus on outcomes you can track credibly:

Service outcomes

• coverage reliability
• response times / waitlists
• missed visits / delayed jobs
• patient or client experience measures (where applicable)

Workforce outcomes

• unplanned absence rates
• overtime hours (and distribution fairness)
• roster stability (how often it changes last minute)
• retention signals and turnover

Cost outcomes

• total labour cost per unit of service
• agency usage and reasons
• premium hours (penalties, overtime) as a proportion of total
• rework cost (repeat visits, repeat calls)

These measures help you move the conversation from “rostering feels bad” to “here’s what’s driving it, and here’s what we’re changing”.

How Trace Consultants can help

Rostering is one of those capabilities that touches everything—service, finance, people, compliance, technology. That makes it easy for it to fall between organisational cracks.

Trace Consultants helps clients solve the rostering puzzle by bringing structure to that complexity—without losing sight of the realities on the floor, in the ward, on the road, or on the phones.

Here’s how we typically support organisations across Australia and New Zealand:

1) Demand and workload analysis for variable environments

We help you understand demand patterns properly (including peaks and volatility), translate demand into workload, and build staffing models that reflect reality rather than averages.

2) Workforce mix and operating model design

We assess how your workforce is currently structured (full-time/part-time/casual/agency), identify where rigidity is creating cost or service risk, and design a mix that can absorb volatility more sustainably.

3) Rostering governance, rules, and fairness

We help define clear rostering principles—overtime allocation, surge triggers, swap rules, approval pathways—so rostering becomes consistent and defensible, not a weekly negotiation.

4) Technology selection and enablement (without the shelfware)

We support requirements definition, vendor evaluation, and implementation planning in a way that prioritises adoption, usability, compliance, and measurable outcomes—rather than feature lists.

5) Benefits tracking and continuous improvement

We establish performance measures tied to service outcomes, workforce wellbeing, and cost-to-serve, then embed routines so improvements stick beyond the project.

We don’t make up numbers. We don’t sell silver bullets. We help you build a workforce planning and rostering capability that matches the complexity of your service environment—and holds up on Monday morning, not just in a PowerPoint.

Final thought: the puzzle doesn’t disappear, but it can become solvable

If demand were stable, rostering would be admin.

But demand isn’t stable—and in Australia and New Zealand, the cost and compliance environment adds an extra layer of pressure. Wage changes, sector-specific award adjustments, and broader reforms mean labour decisions carry more weight than ever.

The goal isn’t to build the “perfect roster”. The goal is to build a system where:

• service targets are clear,
• demand is understood,
• staffing is modelled realistically,
• workforce flexibility is designed (not improvised),
• fairness is visible,
• and decisions are supported by good data and governance.

That’s when the rostering puzzle stops feeling like chaos—and starts feeling like a capability.

If you’re ready to move from reactive rostering to strategic workforce planning, Trace Consultants can help you define the pathway and deliver it in a way that suits your workforce, your customers, and your budget.

‍