Scheduling is a fundamental part of contact center operations and plays a critical role in shaping a company’s success. Proper workforce allocation can lead to higher productivity and customer satisfaction, ultimately driving business prosperity. On the other hand, poor scheduling may lead to serious consequences caused by, for example, overstaffing or understaffing. Moreover, beyond simply planning ahead, scheduling also requires continuous adjustments to adapt to fluctuations in incoming volumes and agents’ actual activities.
When it comes to creating schedules, planners seem to fall into two groups. Some embrace the beauty of scheduling platforms, especially with the rapid advancements in AI. Others, however, still prefer traditional scheduling methods over automated systems. This raises an important question: Automated vs Manual Scheduling: Which delivers better results?
When Manual Scheduling Works
The first thing that comes to mind when considering whether manual scheduling is appropriate is, of course, the size of the team and the overall contact center. In smaller contact centers, it is easier to have an overview of operations and maintain control over agents’ schedules. With fewer employees, the scheduling process is often straightforward, and managers can easily track individual working hours, breaks, and shift activities without the need for complex software. Small contact centers also typically involve simpler forecasting without the complications of aggregated queues. In such cases, single-skilled agents handle a single queue.
Additionally, manual scheduling is often manageable when the contact center operates within limited or short opening hours, such as a business that only provides customer support during regular office hours. This also means that there are fewer or no requirements for flexibility, and the schedule follows a consistent pattern. For example, if all agents have fixed shifts with minimal variations, such as working the same hours each day or week, the complexity of scheduling decreases, making automation unnecessary.
This scenario can also happen in contact centers with strict rules that dictate shift structures. For instance, such rules could permit variability in starting times or shift activities day to day.
Tailoring Schedules to Individual Needs
Manual scheduling may help when handling agents with unique contract agreements or individual requests. For instance, certain agents may have specific working conditions, such as being available only in the afternoon every second week or having predefined working hours due to personal commitments. In such cases, a manual approach allows managers to tailor schedules to accommodate these needs more effectively. Another case in which manual scheduling is applicable is when managing agents’ preferences for working and taking days off. When handling such requests, manual adjustments may be more efficient in ensuring fairness and employee satisfaction.
However, while these points show the benefits of manual scheduling, they also come with limitations. At what point does a team stop being considered “small”? Is it when there are 20 agents, 10, or maybe 100? How many different skills can an agent have before manual scheduling becomes impractical? How many unique scheduling requests can be managed before inefficiencies arise? What is considered “fair” when handling preferences?
In some cases, manual scheduling is sufficient. Yet when such questions arise, they often prompt consideration of implementing scheduling software.
Automated Scheduling Scales with Complexity
As a contact center grows, the complexity of both internal processes and external customer interactions increases proportionally. With this growth, it becomes more difficult for managers to maintain control over scheduling. The scheduling team often has to expand, but even then, manual scheduling may no longer be sustainable. In such cases, automated scheduling seems like a solution that brings efficiency and enables data-driven decision-making.
Setting up the scheduling system correctly, which includes incorporating organisational policies and employee availability into the tool, is one of the most crucial but time-consuming phases. However, once the system is configured and seamlessly integrated with other contact center tools (for example, forecasting software), it reduces scheduling errors, such as overstaffing/understaffing, assigning shifts that conflict with agent availability, etc. Moreover, automation helps minimise administrative overhead, allowing managers to focus on performance rather than routine scheduling tasks.
Handling Complexity with Data-Driven Tools
Automated scheduling systems can accurately and quickly calculate the number of agents needed per interval based on forecasted incoming volumes, agent skills, and key variables, such as planned and unplanned shrinkage. These systems can also operate across multiple layers of complexity. For instance, in large contact centers spanning several time zones, automated tools take into account regional demand patterns and time zone differences. Additionally, such systems help ensure fairness by distributing shifts and activities based on objective data, surpassing personal bias or subjective preferences, leading to a more transparent and unprejudiced scheduling process.
In the manual scheduling part, it was also discussed that it is easier to handle unique agents and their preferences manually. Well, I ought to warn you that it is also possible to manage agent requests directly within the system. Employees can submit their availability, time-off requests, or shift preferences through self-service portals. The system can be configured to automatically approve or reject these requests based on pre-set rules, such as limiting the number of accepted time-off requests per month. Surely, these working preferences can be taken into account when generating a schedule.
Intraday Management: Where Automation Really Shines
A major advantage of automation becomes even more evident in intraday scheduling. With unexpected changes throughout the day, such as agents calling in sick or changes in demand, it becomes difficult to track who is doing what and when. Automated systems are able to maintain real-time logs demonstrating schedule adherence. These systems can also detect deviations, for example, when an agent arrives late or takes a longer break. Based on these various factors, immediate adjustments to rebalance staffing and activities are suggested, ensuring better error detection and correction.
While automation can handle a bunch of pretty cool features, it is not as perfect as it looks. Robots can’t write symphonies, and just like that, scheduling can’t be fully automated (at least not yet).
Finding the Right Balance
Let’s return to the question asked at the beginning: Automated vs Manual Scheduling: Which delivers better results? There’s no definite answer. The truth is, in most cases, it’s not about choosing one or the other. As contact centers grow and evolve, scheduling naturally shifts into a blended process, where automation and manual oversight work together. A hybrid approach can offer the best solution, where software becomes the engine, generating a foundational schedule and providing performance analysis to support manual adjustments.
When People Matter More Than Math
It is not always easy to fully understand the actual requirements of a contact center or to build a system that functions in its ideal way. Managers do their best to find the right combination of rules that will create the most suitable schedule. This is where software plays a valuable role by saving time when handling different scenarios involving large amounts of data, from forecasted volumes with dozens of queues to multi-skilled agents spread across several departments, and combining it into a mathematically optimal solution.
Still, mathematically optimal does not always mean optimal for people or business needs. That is why additional analysis of the generated schedule needs to be performed. For instance, based on forecasted volumes, only one person is needed on call at night; however, from a human or risk management perspective, having at least two or three agents on call might be better. These kinds of adjustments and fine-tuning are common, and they become much easier when the tool also provides insightful analysis. Based on an overview of, for example, staffing levels per interval and expected service levels, managers can adjust the schedule to better align with the company’s real-world needs and adjust the tool’s requirements for future use.
Beyond fine-tuning, real-world situations like last-minute absences, sudden changes in business priorities, or accommodating special agent requests that fall outside standard scheduling rules also require a human touch. In this sense, automation leverages speed, consistency and data-driven accuracy, while manual intervention allows flexibility and responsiveness to unique situations.
Final thoughts
Automation does not replace human judgment, it enhances it. By leveraging automation for efficiency and scalability, and using manual oversight for flexibility and personalisation, contact centers can create a scheduling strategy that is both effective and adaptable.
What are your thoughts on manual and automated scheduling? Do you stick to manual planning, rely on automation, or mix a bit of both? We would love to hear your experiences, so drop a comment below and join the conversation!
And if you are wondering what our scheduling software can do (yep, it’s pretty cool) – let us know! We’re happy to show you around. 😉