CRM Licensing

Precision scheduling that eliminates overscheduling and wasted spend

30-minute interval coverage

Liveops schedules coverage in 30-minute blocks instead of locking agents into full shifts. You get exactly the number of active agents you need in each interval, so you can schedule agents heavy on Monday when demand spikes without paying for idle midweek hours you don’t need.

This efficiency model is the key reason CRM licensing becomes a smaller part of the overall cost structure—productive-time alignment outweighs the license count.

Where flexible coverage meets smart licensing

Liveops operates with an on-demand, interval-based model. To give you more coverage on Mondays, during promos, or in seasonal spikes, we activate a larger network of agents than a traditional 40-hour-per-week contact center.

That broader bench does translate into more individual CRM users. But those users are scheduled in shorter, targeted windows and you are billed only for the time they are actually assisting your customers. When you remove paid shrinkage, facilities, and on-site IT from the equation, the overall program cost still comes in lower than a standard model.

In the standard example below, client demand isn’t flat across the week. Some days are heavy (like Monday at 750 hours), and others are much lighter (like Thursday at 230 hours). When you add all five days together, the client needs 2,415 productive hours of support to meet SLAs for the week.

If every paid hour were 100% productive, you’d simply divide 2,415 by a 40-hour workweek. That gives you just over 60 FTEs, which is why the “FTE w/o Shrinkage” row shows 61 agents scheduled each day. At 61 agents × 40 hours, the operation pays for 2,440 hours, which is only 25 hours over what the client truly needs. On paper, that looks pretty efficient.

But real contact centers don’t work at 100% productivity. Once you factor in shrinkage—breaks, meetings, coaching, downtime, and other non-productive time—the math changes. In this example, shrinkage is modeled at about 35%, which means each full-time employee only spends roughly 65% of their paid time actively helping customers.

To still deliver the same 2,415 productive hours with 35% shrinkage, the standard model has to increase staffing to 94 full-time agents. At 94 agents × 40 hours, the operation now pays for 3,760 total hours in a week. That’s 1,345 more paid hours than the company actually needs in productive time—exactly what the “Over/Under” column highlights.

So the increase from 61 to 94 agents isn’t about higher demand; it’s about the inefficiency baked into the traditional model. You have to add headcount just to make up for shrinkage, which drives up labor hours and total spend even though the underlying customer need (2,415 productive hours) hasn’t changed.