Skip to main content

The Human Services Professionals

Go Search
Our Products
Frontline Apps
About Us
Contact Us
Our Rates
> Resources > The Human Services Professionals > Web Pages > gapanalysis  

Staff Suitability, House Requirements v. Staff Characteristics, Gap Analysis ... it's all the same thing, really!

From: Damien Ryan-Green <>
Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Subject: RosterCoster Reference Group Topic: Staff Suitability, House Requirements v. Staff Characteristics, Gap Analysis ... it's all the same thing, really!
To: <RosterCoster Reference Group>

Before we start, scroll down to the LAST email below, and have a look at a query from Mike Davies (YJCS) below.

Mike's idea here relates to the "characteristics" of staff member X, and how "suitable" that person is for a shift in, say, house Y.

The following is an IDEAS FORUM ONLY "beyond straight rostering", and builds on Mike's ideas. Ideas forums are generally not yet in scope, and are usually brought into play only after an org feels it has it's "straight rostering" down pat and humming along!

N.b. does have functionality in areas such as characteristics v. requirements (see below), and in other areas "beyond straight rostering". It's ALSO ABOUT GETTING SOFTWARE TO HELP YOU RUN YOUR ORG MORE LEAN - EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS, BETTER SERVICE TO CLIENTS*, LESS COST ... so please feel free to ring me on 0438 388 922 for an immediate "look-see", and a window into future possibilities ...

*We are one of those software companies that actually knows about client service delivery. We are also human services professionals, with at least half our team, including myself, having qualifications and long experience working with people with disabilities, and also having spent many years in disability accommodation services line management and on statewide projects.

Topic: Staff Suitability, House Requirements v. Staff Characteristics, Gap Analysis ... it's all the same thing, really!

Or: Getting more sophisticated with flagging "suitability" of staff for houses, units, shifts ... or in the case of recruitment and succession planning, "suitability" of staff for a new role, or even a job in the first place!

The idea of "characteristics" can be expanded to include "suitability" for shifts against other sorts of "requirements", for example WorkCover Requirements, Training Requirements, Cost of Hiring Requirements and so on.

For example, case scenario:

  • The "requirements" of house X may include "Managing Epilepsy" and "Manual Handling"

  • The "characteristics" of a staff member Y may include "Managing Epilepsy - Expires 15 Dec 2012), but EXCLUDE "Manual Handling"

Even if the staff member Y painted him or herself as "available", you would want this availability to NOT show up against house X, or at least for you to get a warning.

Once you start to think through "characteristics" v. "requirements", you start to see that all sorts of benefits - the software can effectively becomes a training database, alerting you if, say, "first aid level two for 10 staff members will expire in the next 30 days - we recommend you book a training course for the following staff ..."

The above logic continues on indefinitely into performance management, succession and recruitment and so on ... all these things are just additional versions of "suitability" gap analysis, i.e. the gap between an org's requirements, and a staff member's characteristics (for example, qualifications, experience etc.)

It's a big subject, but an exciting one.

And even though it's "beyond rostering", information like this is gold for rostering systems, because you can imagine the benefits of not only having staff "availability" to hand, but also being able to screen, even down to a shift level, staff "suitability" on top of that. Maybe you'll discover that:

  • You have "no one suitable", and use this as a trigger to recruit; or

  • You have "too many suitable", and use this as a trigger to trim your casual list of, say, all casuals who have not signalled any availability in the last six months, and write them a letter ... "are you serious about being on the casual pool"?



---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: <>

Date: Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Subject: Re: Hi Tony, query from Mike Davies ...

To: Tony Ryan <>


hi mike

Interesting that NW Region has had same idea, and uses, at the end of staff names, (C) for casual and (O) for ongoing ... that might be a good starting point for you and i to have a chat?

about time we had a catch up anyway, as we wait for word on the "doug project", which would tend to cover these sorts of things formally

I'll drop around if you summon (tho if poss, do so on a day when i can get a pc :)


Damien Ryan-Green
Phone: 0438 388 922


Tony Ryan <>




20/02/2012 06:40 PM


Re: Hi Tony, query from Mike Davies ...

Correct Damien, we cant do colours.

In NW Region they use Markers like (C) for Casual and (O) for Ongoing at the end of the code field in the staff list. Important not to change the First name or Surname, just the code section, as the code shows in the availability pages, not the first name and surname.

Programmers could possibly code for generics like Casual or Full Time, if they exist.


Tony Ryan - Communications Manager - RosterCoster - Phone 0407 139 796

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:32 PM, <> wrote:

13/02/2012 10:49

New request

Is there a simple way to differentiate between casual staff and ongoing/contract staff - eg could their name come up as a different colour. - ONLINE ROSTERING

Mike Davies

Youth Justice


As far as I know, words like "Casual" and "Ongoing" are just words "we" enter, and as far as is concerned, they have no greater significance than a Unit Name, such as "Admissions"

Am I right in saying this? If I am, I'll go and have a chat with Mike, and see if I can think outside the square a bit on this one, without promising anything...