Example - Dynamic Scheduling

  • Release version: Australia
  • Updated March 12, 2026
  • 3 minutes to read
    • Summarize
    Summarized using AI
    This content was generated using new OpenAI-powered functionality. Results are provided on an as is basis and are not guaranteed to be accurate or complete.

    Summary of Example - Dynamic Scheduling

    This example illustrates how Dynamic Scheduling in ServiceNow prioritizes the best field technician for a task using weighted matching criteria. It emphasizes how availability and parts matching are used to score technicians and select the most suitable agent for assignment. Additionally, it explains how distance can be incorporated as an important factor when technicians are spread across different geographic regions.

    Show full answer Show less

    Key Features

    • Matching Criteria and Weights: Criteria such as Availability Today and Agents with Most Parts are assigned weights (20 and 10 respectively) to reflect their importance in ranking technicians.
    • Ranking Method: Both criteria use a "More is better" ranking, where higher availability or more matching parts increase the score.
    • Technician Scoring: Each technician’s score is calculated by normalizing their values against maximums (e.g., hours available out of 8, parts available out of 5), multiplying by the criterion weight, and then summing weighted scores relative to total weight.
    • Distance Consideration: When technicians are geographically dispersed, distance to the task becomes a critical factor using criteria like Current Distance From Task. For distance, a "Less is better" ranking is applied, requiring an adjustment by subtracting the normalized distance score from 1 to align with other criteria.

    Key Outcomes

    • The example shows that Mack, with higher availability but fewer parts, scores higher (0.7334) than Alice (0.5499), indicating he is the better match based on weighted criteria.
    • Dynamic Scheduling enables ServiceNow customers to tailor task assignments by defining relevant criteria and weights, ensuring optimal agent-task matching based on operational priorities.
    • Incorporating distance-based criteria allows for more accurate scheduling in broader service regions, improving response times and efficiency.

    Explore how Dynamic Scheduling prioritizes the best agent for a task, focusing on key matching criteria.

    Consider a scenario in which all field technicians work in the same region. Since all technicians are going to be the same relative distance from a task, availability to perform a task is the most important criteria, followed by matching part requirements.

    This example assumes the following information.
    • Maximum number of hours available in a day: 8
    • Total parts required: 5

    Matching Criteria Values are described in the following list. Alice and Mack are Global Teller Systems field technicians.

    • Alice has 5 hours of availability and 2 of the required parts.
    • Mack has 8 hours of availability and 1 of the required parts.
    • Availability Today criteria is assigned a weight of 20, as it is most important.
    • Agents with most parts criteria is assigned a weight of 10, as it should be considered as the next most important criteria.
    • All criteria have a ranking method of More is better.
    Alice Criterion Weight Ranking Method Mack
    5 Availability Today 20 More is better 8
    2 Agents with most parts 10 More is better 1

    Now that we have the matching criteria values, we can calculate the criterion rating.

    First, calculate a number for each criterion, based on the sample work order task data provided:

    Available today:

    Alice: 5 / 8 = 0.625 (with 8 being the maximum number of hours).

    Mack: 8 / 8 = 1.

    Technicians with most parts:

    Alice: 2/5 = 0.4 (with 5 being the total number of parts required).

    Mack: 1 / 5 = 0.2.

    Alice Criterion Weight Ranking Method Mack
    5/8 Availability today 20 More is better 8/8
    2/5 Technicians with the most parts 10 More is better 1/5

    After we have the matching values and the criterion rating we can calculate the technician ranking for Alice and Mack.

    The following is the technician ranking for Alice.

    Multiply the number for each criterion by the criterion weight and then divide the result by the total of all criterion weight. Repeat for each criterion and add the results.

    Formula: (Criteria_1 rating x Criteria_1 weight) / total criterion weight + (Criteria_2 rating x Criteria_2 weight) / total criterion weight +(Criteria_3 rating x Criteria_3 weight) / total of criterion weight = technician rank/score.

    Table 1. Calculating Alice's ranking
    Criterion Criterion rating with calculation Weight Score
    Availability Today 0.625 20 0.4166
    Technicians with most parts 0.4 10 0.1333
    Total 30 0.5499

    The following is the technician ranking for Mack.

    Multiply the number for each criterion by the criterion weight and then divide the result by the total of all criterion weight. Repeat for each criterion and add the results.

    Formula: (Criteria_1 rating x Criteria_1 weight) / total criterion weight + (Criteria_2 rating x Criteria_2 weight) / total criterion weight +(Criteria_3 rating x Criteria_3 weight) / total of criterion weight = technician rank/score.

    Table 2. Calculating Mack's ranking
    Criterion Criterion rating with calculation Weight Score
    Availability Today 1 20 0.6667
    Technicians with most parts 0.2 10 0.0667
    Total 30 0.7334

    Result: Mack (0.7334) has a higher ranking score than Alice (0.5599), therefore Mack is assigned the task.

    Consider distance from task in addition to matching criteria

    Consider how the calculation would change if the field agents were not all in the same, small region. When distance matters, the Current Distance From Task or Distance From Task matching criteria can be used. These distance from task criteria are unlike the other criteria because the closer the field agent is to the task, the better. Therefore, unlike the other criteria, a lower number here is better than a higher number. The less is better adjustment is necessary to make a true comparison of the resulting scores. An adjustment is made by subtracting the score from one (1) for any criterion using the ranking method Less is better.
    Note:
    Distance From Task calculation occurs in the LocationFromTask Script Includes and Current Distance From Task calculation occurs in the CurrentLocationFromTask Script Includes. This calculation takes the task latitude and longitude and compares it to the agent's latitude and longitude, as expressed in miles.