How work is allocated can have a surprisingly large impact on operational performance.

Two teams may have:

  • The same number of employees
  • The same incoming volume
  • The same productivity targets
  • The same SLA

Yet one team may maintain a healthy backlog while the other continuously struggles with aging cases.

The difference may simply be which case gets worked next.

Three common approaches are:

FIFO — First In, First Out

Priority-Based Allocation

Skill-Based Allocation

Each approach solves a different problem.

And in many operations, the best answer is not choosing one of them.

It is combining them correctly.

Why Work Allocation Matters

Consider a queue containing 5,000 cases.

If employees can freely select which cases they want to process, they may naturally choose:

  • Easier work
  • Familiar work
  • Newer cases
  • Cases that can be completed quickly

The team may still report strong productivity.

But older, complex or less desirable cases may remain untouched.

Over time, the operation can develop:

High productivity + increasing aged backlog

That is why work allocation should not simply answer:

Who has capacity?

It should also answer:

What is the most appropriate case for that person to work next?

Method 1: FIFO — First In, First Out

FIFO is one of the simplest and most widely used work-allocation methods.

The principle is:

The oldest eligible work should be processed first.

For example:

Case A received at 9:00 AM
Case B received at 10:30 AM
Case C received at 12:00 PM

FIFO would process them in this order:

A → B → C

This approach is particularly useful when age is the primary operational concern.

Advantages of FIFO

FIFO has several important benefits.

It Helps Control Aging

Because older cases are worked first, cases are less likely to remain indefinitely in the queue.

It Is Easy to Explain

Employees and managers can easily understand why a particular case was selected.

It Reduces Cherry-Picking

If the next eligible case is automatically selected, employees cannot simply choose the easiest work.

It Supports Fair Queue Management

When cases have similar priority and complexity, FIFO creates a consistent processing order.

Where FIFO Can Fail

Pure FIFO assumes that every case has approximately equal importance.

Real operations rarely work that way.

Imagine:

Case A

Age: 5 days
Priority: Standard

Case B

Age: 1 day
Priority: Critical

FIFO would select Case A first.

But the business may require Case B to be processed immediately.

Similarly, the oldest case may require a specialist skill that the current employee does not have.

So FIFO alone is not always enough.

Method 2: Priority-Based Allocation

Priority-based allocation allows the business to identify work that should receive preferential treatment.

Typical priority levels might include:

Critical

High

Standard

Low

Cases can then be routed based on their assigned priority.

For example:

Case A — Standard — 7 days old
Case B — Critical — 1 day old
Case C — High — 3 days old

A priority-based model might process:

Case B → Case C → Case A

even though Case A is oldest.

When Priority-Based Allocation Works Well

Priority routing is useful when certain transactions create greater:

  • Customer impact
  • Financial exposure
  • Compliance risk
  • Regulatory risk
  • Executive escalation
  • Business urgency

For example, an ordinary customer request and a regulatory complaint should probably not compete equally for processing capacity.

The Risk of Priority Inflation

Priority-based allocation has its own problem.

If too many cases are classified as urgent, priority stops being meaningful.

An operation may eventually reach a situation where:

Everything is High Priority.

When that happens, the queue effectively loses prioritization.

Organizations should therefore define clear rules for when a case qualifies as:

  • Critical
  • High
  • Standard
  • Low

Priority should represent genuine business importance rather than simply someone's preference.

Method 3: Skill-Based Allocation

Skill-based allocation addresses a different problem.

It asks:

Is this employee qualified to process this case?

Not every employee can necessarily handle every work type.

For example, a claims operation may have employees trained for:

  • Professional claims
  • Hospital claims
  • Corrected claims
  • Appeals

A verification operation may have specialists for:

  • Employment verification
  • Education verification
  • Identity verification
  • Criminal checks

Assigning work without considering skills can create:

  • Processing errors
  • Reassignments
  • Longer AHT
  • Quality issues
  • Compliance risk

How Skill-Based Routing Works

Employees are associated with specific eligible skills.

Cases are associated with the skill required to process them.

The allocation engine then considers only employees who meet the required eligibility.

Conceptually:

Case requires Skill A

↓

Find employees qualified for Skill A

↓

Apply additional routing rules

↓

Assign case

This prevents work from being distributed to employees who are not trained or authorized to complete it.

Skill-Based Allocation Alone Is Also Not Enough

Suppose 20 employees are qualified for a particular work type.

The system now knows who can process the case.

It still needs to decide:

Which case should be processed first?

That is where skill-based routing typically needs to be combined with FIFO, priority or SLA rules.

The Better Approach: Combine the Rules

For many case-based operations, the strongest model is hierarchical.

For example:

1. Skill Eligibility

Can this employee process the case?

↓

2. Priority

Is there critical or high-priority work?

↓

3. SLA Risk

Which cases are closest to service-level breach?

↓

4. FIFO

Among equally eligible cases, process the oldest first.

This creates a much more intelligent allocation model than any single rule on its own.

Example of Combined Allocation

Assume an employee is qualified for Worktypes A and B.

The eligible queue contains:

Case 101
Worktype A
Standard priority
8 days old

Case 102
Worktype C
Critical priority
9 days old

Case 103
Worktype B
Critical priority
2 days old

Case 104
Worktype A
High priority
6 days old

The employee is not qualified for Worktype C.

So Case 102 is removed from consideration.

Remaining cases:

101 — Standard — 8 days
103 — Critical — 2 days
104 — High — 6 days

Priority is then applied.

The employee receives:

Case 103

even though it is the newest case.

The rules determine the correct work rather than simply selecting the oldest transaction in the entire queue.

SLA Risk Can Become Another Allocation Layer

Priority and age are not always enough.

Suppose two standard-priority cases exist:

Case A

Age: 7 days
SLA: 30 days

Case B

Age: 5 days
SLA: 7 days

If FIFO is used, Case A would be processed first.

But Case B has only two days remaining before SLA breach.

A more advanced allocation approach may therefore consider:

Remaining SLA Time

rather than age alone.

For example:

Remaining SLA = SLA Limit − Current Case Age

The lower the remaining time, the greater the potential service risk.

For more on this, see:

How to Manage Backlog, Aging and SLA in Case-Based Operations

https://www.praevexa.com/insights/manage-backlog-aging-sla-case-operations

What About Manual Assignment?

Automated routing does not mean manual assignment should disappear completely.

Supervisors may still need to manually assign cases when:

  • A specialist investigation is required
  • A particular employee already understands the issue
  • An escalation needs dedicated ownership
  • Training cases need controlled distribution
  • Work needs to be redistributed after absence
  • An exception requires management intervention

Manual assignment should be an exception-management tool, not necessarily the default operating model.

If supervisors manually assign thousands of routine transactions every day, considerable management time may be spent simply distributing work.

Why Manual Allocation Becomes Difficult at Scale

Imagine a supervisor managing:

20 employees

and

3,000 open cases.

To allocate work effectively, the supervisor needs to consider:

  • Employee availability
  • Skills
  • Existing assignments
  • Priority
  • Age
  • SLA
  • Complexity
  • Backlog
  • Absence
  • Workload

Doing that manually for every case becomes increasingly difficult.

Automated allocation allows supervisors to focus on exceptions while the routine flow follows predefined business rules.

Allocation Should Also Consider Employee Availability

Even the best routing rules fail if work is assigned to people who are unavailable.

For example, an employee may be:

  • On leave
  • In training
  • Working a different activity
  • Logged out
  • Assigned to another process

A sophisticated operating model should therefore distinguish between:

Skill eligibility

and

current availability.

Having the skill does not automatically mean someone should receive work at that moment.

Work Allocation and Productivity Are Connected

Allocation methodology can also distort productivity comparisons.

Suppose:

Employee A processes mostly simple cases.

Employee B receives more complex cases.

Employee A completes 60 cases.

Employee B completes 35.

A simple completed-case comparison suggests Employee A is more productive.

But that conclusion may be incorrect.

This is why organizations may need to analyze productivity alongside:

  • Work type
  • Complexity
  • AHT
  • Skill
  • Priority
  • Case outcome

Fair allocation improves the quality of performance measurement.

Good Allocation Helps Prevent Cherry-Picking

One of the strongest arguments for controlled allocation is the reduction of self-selection bias.

If employees choose their own work, management may unintentionally reward employees who become good at selecting favorable cases.

For example:

Employee A selects short, straightforward cases and achieves:

8 CPH

Employee B processes complicated cases and achieves:

4 CPH

Without context, Employee A appears twice as productive.

The allocation model itself may have created the difference.

Controlled routing provides greater confidence that productivity comparisons are meaningful.

Do Not Ignore Work Complexity

A FIFO queue containing cases with dramatically different handling times may still produce uneven workloads.

For example:

Case A — expected AHT 5 minutes

Case B — expected AHT 45 minutes

Counting both as one case does not reflect the effort required.

Some organizations therefore use:

  • Complexity levels
  • Weighted cases
  • Standard minutes
  • Expected AHT
  • Skill tiers

The appropriate approach depends on the process.

But complexity should be considered where the workload varies significantly.

Allocation Rules Should Be Transparent

Employees should understand how work reaches them.

A completely opaque allocation system can create mistrust.

Teams should understand principles such as:

  • Which skills they hold
  • How priority is determined
  • Whether FIFO is used
  • How SLA risk affects routing
  • When supervisors can manually assign work
  • What happens after reassignment

Transparency makes automated allocation easier to adopt.

Measure Whether the Allocation Strategy Is Working

Routing rules should not simply be configured and forgotten.

Management should monitor whether they are improving operational outcomes.

Useful measures include:

Backlog Aging

Is old work reducing?

SLA Performance

Are fewer cases breaching?

Work Distribution

Is workload balanced?

Productivity

Is output improving?

AHT

Are cases reaching appropriately skilled employees?

Reassignment Rate

Are fewer cases being transferred because of incorrect routing?

Quality

Are skill-based assignments reducing errors?

These metrics help determine whether the work-allocation model is achieving its intended purpose.

Which Method Is Best?

There is no universal winner.

Use FIFO When:

  • Cases have similar priority
  • Aging is the main concern
  • Processing rules are relatively consistent
  • Oldest-work-first is operationally appropriate

Use Priority-Based Allocation When:

  • Some cases create greater business risk
  • Escalations need faster handling
  • Customer or regulatory importance varies

Use Skill-Based Allocation When:

  • Different work types require different expertise
  • Employees have different authorization levels
  • Incorrect routing creates quality or compliance risk

Combine Them When:

Your operation has different work types, varying priority and service commitments.

For many mature back-office operations, the combined approach is the most appropriate.

A Practical Allocation Framework

A useful model might be:

Step 1 — Check Availability

Is the employee currently eligible to receive work?

↓

Step 2 — Check Skill

Which cases can they process?

↓

Step 3 — Check Priority

Is critical or high-priority work waiting?

↓

Step 4 — Check SLA Risk

Which eligible cases are closest to breach?

↓

Step 5 — Apply FIFO

Among otherwise equal cases, select the oldest.

↓

Step 6 — Assign Exclusive Ownership

Prevent another employee from processing the same case.

This produces a controlled workflow without requiring a supervisor to manually choose every case.

From Manual Allocation to Intelligent Work Routing

The evolution of work allocation often looks like:

Employees Pick Work

↓

Supervisor Assigns Work

↓

FIFO Allocation

↓

Skill-Based Routing

↓

Priority + SLA Routing

↓

Operations Intelligence

The goal is not automation for its own sake.

The goal is to ensure that:

The right work reaches the right person at the right time.

How Praevexa CaseFlow Can Help

Praevexa CaseFlow is designed for back-office and transaction-processing teams where work allocation, ownership and operational performance need to be controlled together.

CaseFlow supports capabilities such as:

  • Departments, Queues and configurable Worktypes
  • Employee skill eligibility
  • Priority-based case handling
  • FIFO/LIFO allocation
  • Manual supervisor assignment
  • Exclusive case ownership
  • Pend and hold workflows
  • Follow-up management
  • Rework and reassignment
  • TAT and SLA monitoring
  • AHT and CPH
  • Productivity and operational reporting
  • Role-based Operations Intelligence

Rather than requiring employees to search through a tracker and decide what to process next, a structured allocation model helps organizations create a more consistent operating flow.

Learn more about Praevexa CaseFlow:

https://www.praevexa.com/CaseFlow.aspx

You may also find these CaseFlow guides useful:

What Is Case Management Software for Back-Office Operations?

https://www.praevexa.com/insights/case-management-software-back-office-operations

How to Manage Backlog, Aging and SLA in Case-Based Operations

https://www.praevexa.com/insights/manage-backlog-aging-sla-case-operations