All courses / AI Boss / Module 2 / Chapter 9
Learning objectives
After the lesson the participant can:
- Explain how a roster or an allocation reaches M3 Consequence through hours, premiums and the mix of work.
- Summarise what the cited studies measured about schedule instability, notice and quick returns.
- Apply the draft guidelines' distinction between behavioural inputs and availability to an input list.
- Negotiate a delegation profile for a rostering or allocation system with degrees, inputs and change classes.
Key concepts
- Objective function
- What the optimiser weighs: coverage against cost, and preferences against both. Every weight is a management choice, recorded or not, and the chapter asks that it be written in plain language.
- Input list
- The allowed and prohibited inputs of the system. The input list decides the AI Act classification, so it belongs in the delegation profile, and adding an input is a change that needs review.
- Premium-bearing shifts
- Evening, night and weekend shifts that carry supplements. The rule that distributes them is in effect a pay-setting criterion, which the Pay Transparency Directive requires to be objective and gender-neutral.
- Pattern review by person
- A regular review of hours, premium-bearing shifts, quick returns, items by complexity tier and manager changes, reported to representatives at group level and to individuals only about themselves.
- Change classes
- The agreement on which changes reopen negotiation, such as the objective function, inputs or offer rules, and which are only notified, such as forecast refreshes and bug fixes.
Interactive exercises
Do them here and get feedback at once. Choose a card and then where it belongs, or drag it.
Interactive exercise 1 · Sort
The degree that fits each decision
Sort each rostering or allocation decision under the degree of delegation that Chapter 9 says fits it.
Interactive exercise 2 · Scenario
A release with a new input
Apply the change classes and the input list of the delegation profile DLG-NR-ROS-01 to the situation below.
Teaching plan
| 15 min | The teacher presents the roster as an optimisation problem and the three ways software shapes pay: hours, premiums and direct pricing. |
| 15 min | Evidence round: participants summarise the retail survey, the Seattle ordinance study, the quick-returns review and the Gap experiment, each with its stated limit. |
| 15 min | Presentation of the working-time floor, CCOO v Deutsche Bank, Directive (EU) 2019/1152, the draft guidelines on allocation, and the right degree for each decision. |
| 35 min | Exercise: a negotiation in three roles (system owner, union or works council, line manager) producing a delegation profile for a rostering or allocation system. |
| 10 min | Debrief with the two first records: the three changes Mikael Strand made in MDR-NR-0001 and the lasting correction in MDR-HM-0001. |
Discussion
- In MDR-HM-0001 the lasting correction was a capacity field the team leader fills in without giving reasons. Why does the chapter call that the valuable part, and what does it say about M5 Care?
- The chapter says a unit that has not drafted a roster by hand for three years has delegated more than its profile says. How would you test that in a unit you know?
- An optimiser that gives evening and weekend shifts to those with the widest availability can produce a pay gap without any gender variable. Who in your organisation would see that effect, and when?
Written exercise
Exercise · 35 minutes
Negotiate a rostering profile
In groups of three, take the roles of system owner, workers' representative and line manager, and negotiate a delegation profile for a rostering or allocation system, following the chapter's practical guide. List each decision the system takes or supports by management function and agree a degree and a named decider for each. Publish the input list with prohibited inputs. Write the objective function in plain language and agree the rule for distributing premium-bearing shifts and extra hours. Set the publication notice, the worker's right to decline an offer without consequence, the pattern review by person and the change classes that reopen the negotiation. Record one point on which the parties did not agree.
Deliverable: A negotiated profile in the form of DLG-NR-ROS-01 with degrees and deciders, allowed and prohibited inputs, premium-shift rule, notice period, pattern review, change classes and one recorded disagreement.
Self-test
Choose an answer to see whether it is right, or open the answer below each question.
According to the Commission's draft guidelines as the chapter reports them, which basis for allocating tasks falls outside Annex III, point 4(b)?
Show the answer
B. Availability as workers indicate it, a required accreditation or proximity
The draft guidelines count behavioural indicators such as punctuality, reliability metrics or ratings as personal traits, whereas availability as indicated, accreditation or proximity fall outside point 4(b). The chapter notes the guidelines are a draft.Why did Mikael Strand move a weekend evening shift in the Strandvik unit's first roster, as recorded in MDR-NR-0001?
Show the answer
D. The draft gave one person four premium-bearing shifts against a unit rotation of three
Without a rule for premium-bearing shifts the optimiser had concentrated them on the person with the widest availability. The change matters for pay, which is why the profile distributes premium shifts by the unit's rotation rule.What did the Grand Chamber hold in CCOO v Deutsche Bank that matters for a rostering system?
Show the answer
C. Employers must set up an objective, reliable and accessible system measuring the time each worker works each day
The consequence the chapter draws is that the planned roster is not the record of time worked: a roster that complies on paper can breach the rest rules once swaps, overruns and sick-leave cover are added.