Two operating models

Deep-dive lesson · about 10 minutes · short quiz at the end

ccPlanning academy · real-time · deep dive

Two operating models

A dedicated real-time team, or a playbook in operations’ hands. Both can work.

The big idea

There’s no single “right” way to do RTM.

Two very different setups both deliver excellent real-time management. One centralises it in a dedicated team; the other distributes it to operations, armed with a playbook. The wrong move is copying someone else’s model without asking whether it fits you.

Model A

The dedicated real-time team.

A specialist command centre — analysts whose whole job is watching the day and pulling levers across the operation. They live in the data, spot trouble early, and coordinate the response centrally.

Model A · strengths

Expertise, speed, consistency.

Deep skill, a single pane of glass over the whole estate, fast and consistent decisions, and the bandwidth to watch continuously. For large, complex, multi-skill or multi-site operations, this focus is hard to beat.

Model A · costs

Headcount, and a risk of distance.

It’s an overhead — people who don’t take contacts. And a central team can feel remote from the floor: issuing instructions that team leaders resent, or missing context only the floor has. Ownership can blur — “real-time told us to.”

Model B

The playbook-led model.

No dedicated team. Instead, operations runs real-time itself using a clear playbook — agreed triggers and responses (“if queue > X for two intervals, do Y”). Team leaders and duty managers own the day, with planning providing the rules and the data.

Model B · strengths

Cheap, owned, close to the floor.

No extra headcount. The people acting are the people who own the outcome, so buy-in is high and context is rich. For smaller or single-site operations, a good playbook in the operation’s hands often beats a team they can’t justify.

Model B · costs

Consistency and attention.

Operations is busy running the floor, so real-time can slip when it’s most needed. Decisions vary by who’s on duty. The playbook only works if it’s genuinely clear, maintained, and actually followed — not a document nobody opens.

Choosing

Match the model to size and complexity.

Large, volatile, multi-site, multi-skill → a dedicated team usually pays for itself. Smaller, simpler, single-site → a playbook-led model is leaner and just as effective. Many operations run a hybrid: a small central team for oversight plus a floor playbook for routine moves.

Which fits you?

Same job, two right answers

A 1,200-seat, multi-site, multi-skill operation: a dedicated command centre earns its headcount many times over — one pane of glass, continuous watch, fast consistent calls. A 60-seat single-site team: a clear playbook in the duty manager’s hands beats a real-time analyst they can’t justify.

Copy the wrong one and you either drown a small team in overhead or leave a big one flying blind. Fit beats fashion.

The takeaway

Dedicated team or playbook — choose deliberately.

Both models deliver great real-time management. Pick the one that fits your size, complexity and budget — or blend them — and invest in whichever you choose: skill the team, or write and maintain a playbook people actually use.

Now test yourself ↓

1 / 10

Slides done? Here’s the same idea in a bit more depth — the part worth keeping.

In depth: there’s no single right way to run real-time

Two very different setups both deliver excellent real-time management, and the most common mistake is copying someone else’s model without asking whether it fits your operation. One centralises real-time in a dedicated team; the other distributes it to operations, armed with a playbook. Understanding the trade-offs of each is what lets you choose deliberately rather than by default or imitation.

The dedicated team vs the playbook

The dedicated real-time team is a specialist command centre — analysts whose whole job is watching the day and pulling levers across the operation. Its strengths are deep expertise, a single pane of glass over the whole estate, fast and consistent decisions, and the bandwidth to watch continuously; for large, complex, multi-skill or multi-site operations that focus is hard to beat. Its costs are headcount (people who don’t take contacts) and a risk of distance — a central team can feel remote from the floor, issue instructions team leaders resent, and blur ownership into “real-time told us to.” The playbook-led model has no dedicated team; operations runs real-time itself using agreed triggers and responses (“if queue > X for two intervals, do Y”), with planning providing the rules and data. It’s cheap, owned by the people who live with the outcome, and rich in floor context — but real-time can slip when operations is busy, decisions vary by who’s on duty, and it only works if the playbook is genuinely clear, maintained and actually followed.

Match it to size and complexity

The choice tracks scale: large, volatile, multi-site, multi-skill operations usually find a dedicated team pays for itself, while smaller, simpler, single-site ones are better served by a lean playbook in the operation’s hands. Many run a hybrid — a small central team for oversight plus a floor playbook for routine moves — and whichever you pick, the key is to invest in it: skill the team, or write and maintain a playbook people actually use.

The principle to remember: dedicated team or playbook — choose deliberately to fit your size, complexity and budget, or blend the two. Both models work; the failure is adopting one that doesn’t suit you, or under-investing in the one you chose.

Two operating models