Compare the operating models
In this fictional example, Outlets P1/P2 have their own rooms and fixed staff. Trainer Jo visits both. Pooling both rooms as two interchangeable places would offer P2 space to a P1 customer; duplicating Jo’s calendar would allow simultaneous bookings.
| Business requirement | Single pooled calendar | Location calendars with shared people |
|---|---|---|
| Rooms | Could mix different sites | Room belongs to P1 or P2 |
| Fixed staff | Location eligibility unclear | Work at their supplied outlet |
| Visiting Jo | One real availability still needed | One Jo linked to both calendars |
Work through the chosen model
Service offerings identify location and eligible resources. Jo retains one person calendar, with location-specific assignments and supplied travel allowance where needed. Local calendars are views of real assignments, not independent copies of the same person.
- Customer selects location
- Match local resources and shared staff
- Confirm time and location together
Local views simplify site operations but shared identities need consistent assignment. Calendar separation alone does not solve travel or cross-site scheduling.
Jo at P1 10:00–11:00 is unavailable for an overlapping P2 appointment. P1’s Room-R1 does not become a room at P2.
When the other model fits
All appointments are remote with identical resources and no location promise. Must calendars remain separated?
Show the worked answer
No. A shared service calendar can fit while retaining actual staff identity.