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.

‍

Rostering optimisation in service industries

Across Australia and New Zealand, service-based organisations are facing a perfect storm of rising costs, workforce shortages, increasing demand volatility, and heightened expectations from customers, patients, and regulators. In many industries, labour is the single largest cost line, and the most difficult to manage. Yet despite this, rostering processes in many organisations remain manual, reactive, and disconnected from demand.

Rostering optimisation has therefore moved from being an operational “nice to have” to a strategic necessity. Organisations that can align labour supply with real demand, while maintaining service quality and workforce wellbeing, are gaining a significant advantage in an increasingly constrained operating environment.

This article explores how rostering optimisation is changing across service industries, why traditional approaches are falling short, and how organisations can build more sustainable, cost-effective rostering models.

Why rostering has become a strategic issue

Historically, rostering was often treated as an administrative task. Line managers or supervisors created rosters based on experience, availability, and rules of thumb. While imperfect, this approach was often “good enough” when labour markets were loose and demand patterns were relatively stable. That context has fundamentally changed.

Today, service organisations are dealing with:

• Chronic labour shortages
• Higher employee turnover
• Increased reliance on casual, agency, or contingent labour
• More complex industrial agreements and compliance requirements
• Fluctuating and unpredictable demand
• Increased scrutiny of service outcomes and safety

As a result, poorly optimised rosters now have direct and visible consequences such as escalating overtime and agency costs and missed service levels and staff burnout. Rostering is no longer just about filling shifts. It is about balancing cost, service quality, risk, and workforce sustainability in real time.

The true cost of poor rostering

Many organisations underestimate the true cost of ineffective rostering because the impacts are spread across multiple parts of the business.

Common consequences include:

• Excess overtime driven by poor shift design
• High use of agency staff to cover avoidable gaps
• Underutilisation of permanent employees
• Fatigue-related safety incidents
• Declining service reliability
• Increased absenteeism and turnover
• Reduced employee engagement

Individually, these issues may appear manageable. Collectively, they can materially erode margins, service outcomes, and organisational resilience. In industries where margins are already under pressure such as healthcare, aged care, disability services, hospitality, logistics, and facilities management, the cumulative impact of poor rostering can be substantial.

Demand volatility is exposing rostering weaknesses

One of the biggest drivers of rostering inefficiency is the growing mismatch between labour supply and demand.

Demand in service industries is increasingly:

• Time-specific rather than evenly distributed
• Location-dependent
• Sensitive to external factors such as seasonality, events, weather, or funding models
• Subject to last-minute changes

Yet many rostering models still assume relatively static demand profiles. Shifts are fixed, headcounts are standardised, and flexibility is limited.

This disconnect leads to:

• Overstaffing during low-demand periods
• Understaffing during peaks
• Reactive schedule changes that frustrate staff
• Costly last-minute labour decisions

Rostering optimisation begins with acknowledging that demand is dynamic, and designing workforce models that can respond accordingly.

From coverage-based to demand-led rostering

A significant shift occurring across service industries is the move away from coverage-based rostering towards demand-led rostering. Coverage-based rostering focuses on ensuring a certain number of staff are present at all times, regardless of actual demand. While simple to administer, it often results in inefficiency.

Demand-led rostering, by contrast, aligns workforce supply to:

• Forecast service volumes
• Workload intensity by time and location
• Skill requirements
• Service standards

This approach requires better data, improved forecasting, and closer integration between operational planning and rostering.

The result is a roster that is:

• More efficient
• More responsive
• Better aligned with service outcomes
• More defensible from a cost and compliance perspective

Workforce mix is central to optimisation

Rostering optimisation is not just about when people work, it is also about who works. Many service organisations are reassessing their workforce mix to improve flexibility and cost control. This includes reviewing the balance between:

• Full-time and part-time employees
• Casual and contingent labour
• Permanent staff and agency resources
• Skill levels and role design

Over-reliance on agency labour is often a symptom of deeper structural issues, such as:

• Poor demand forecasting
• Inflexible employment models
• Inefficient shift design
• Limited cross-skilling

Optimised rostering considers workforce composition as a strategic lever, not just an operational constraint.

Compliance and fatigue are increasingly critical

As industrial relations frameworks evolve and safety expectations rise, compliance and fatigue management have become central to rostering decisions.

Poorly designed rosters can expose organisations to:

• Breaches of enterprise agreements or awards
• Excessive consecutive shifts
• Inadequate rest periods
• Elevated fatigue and safety risks

Rostering optimisation must therefore balance efficiency with compliance and wellbeing. This requires:

• Clear rule frameworks
• Transparent decision logic
• Strong governance and escalation processes

Optimised rosters should reduce risk, not simply reduce cost.

Technology is an enabler, not a silver bullet

Many organisations have invested in rostering and workforce management systems, yet continue to struggle with outcomes. This is often because technology has been implemented without rethinking underlying processes and decision frameworks.

Effective rostering optimisation requires:

• Clear demand inputs
• Defined workforce rules and constraints
• Agreed service standards
• Strong exception management

Technology can automate and optimise decisions, but only when the inputs and governance are sound.

Increasingly, organisations are also using low-code and analytics tools to:

• Improve visibility of labour demand and supply
• Identify cost drivers and inefficiencies
• Enable faster scenario analysis
• Support managers with better decision insights

The most successful implementations focus on usability and adoption, rather than system complexity.

Change management is often the missing link

Rostering changes directly affect people’s lives. Shift patterns, start times, weekends, and overtime opportunities are deeply personal issues for staff. As a result, even technically sound rostering initiatives can fail without effective change management.

Common challenges include:

• Resistance from frontline managers
• Perceived loss of autonomy
• Concerns about income stability
• Mistrust of “optimisation” initiatives

Successful rostering optimisation programs invest in:

• Early stakeholder engagement
• Transparent communication
• Clear articulation of benefits
• Incremental implementation
• Ongoing feedback loops

Sustainable change requires trust as much as technology.

Industry-specific considerations

While the principles of rostering optimisation are consistent, their application varies by industry:

• In healthcare and aged care, rostering must balance clinical safety, continuity of care, and regulatory compliance.
• In disability services, variability in client needs and funding models adds complexity to scheduling and workforce deployment.
• In hospitality and tourism, demand volatility and seasonality require high levels of flexibility and rapid re-planning.
• In facilities management and service contracting, rostering must align tightly with service level agreements and contract margins.

A one-size-fits-all approach rarely works. Rostering optimisation must be tailored to the operational reality of each industry.

How Trace Consultants can help

Trace Consultants works with service organisations across Australia and New Zealand to design and implement practical, sustainable rostering optimisation solutions. Support typically includes:

Rostering and workforce diagnostic reviews

Assessing current rostering practices, workforce mix, demand patterns, and cost drivers to identify root causes of inefficiency.

Demand and capacity modelling

Helping organisations understand true labour demand by time, location, and skill, providing a robust foundation for roster design.

Rostering framework and process design

Designing clear, demand-led rostering frameworks that balance efficiency, service quality, compliance, and workforce wellbeing.

Workforce mix and role design

Supporting decisions around employment models, skill mix, and role standardisation to improve flexibility and reduce reliance on high-cost labour.

Technology enablement

Assisting with the selection, configuration, and adoption of rostering and workforce management tools, including low-code solutions where appropriate.

Change and implementation support

Ensuring rostering improvements are embedded through strong governance, capability uplift, and stakeholder engagement.

Trace Consultants brings an independent, operationally grounded perspective, helping organisations move beyond short-term fixes towards lasting improvement.

What leaders should focus on now

For leaders in service industries, rostering optimisation should be approached as a strategic program rather than a tactical exercise.

Key priorities include:

• Linking rostering to demand, not just coverage
• Improving workforce flexibility without increasing risk
• Using data to inform decisions rather than intuition alone
• Investing in capability, not just systems
• Engaging the workforce early and transparently

In a constrained labour market, the organisations that succeed will be those that use their workforce intelligently and sustainably.

Final thoughts

Rostering optimisation is no longer about squeezing more hours from fewer people. It is about designing systems that respect the realities of modern service delivery, balancing cost, service quality, compliance, and workforce wellbeing.

As pressures on service industries continue to intensify across Australia and New Zealand, the ability to roster effectively will increasingly separate resilient organisations from those that struggle to keep up. The question facing leaders is not whether rostering can be improved, but whether they are prepared to treat it as the strategic capability it has become.

Is your roster working as hard as your people?‍

If rostering decisions still feel reactive, costly, or overly reliant on manager intuition, there’s likely more value left on the table. At Trace Consultants, we help service organisations design demand-led rostering models that reduce labour cost pressure while protecting service quality, safety, and workforce wellbeing. Clear demand signals, defensible rules, and practical processes that frontline teams can actually use.

Start a conversation with Trace to understand where rostering is creating hidden cost, risk, or fatigue and how a more structured approach can deliver sustainable results across your workforce.