What is the difference between assigning to a person vs. a pool?

Overview

This article explains the difference between assigning a task directly to a named individual and sending it to a shared department pool.

Applies to

Authors, Super Authors, Administrators

Assigning to a named person

When you assign a task directly to a named secretary or transcriptionist, the task is placed immediately in that person’s personal work queue. Only that individual will see and be able to work on the task. This approach is appropriate when you want a specific person to handle a job, for example, your dedicated PA, a secretary with specific expertise in your area of work, or a particular transcriptionist who is familiar with your voice and terminology.

The limitation of direct assignment is that if the named person is unavailable, due to absence, high workload, or being out of the office, the task will sit in their queue until they return or until it is reassigned by an administrator or Super Author.

Assigning to a pool

When you assign a task to a department pool, the task is placed in a shared queue visible to all secretaries who are members of that pool. Any available secretary can accept the task and begin working on it. This approach is appropriate for organisations where dictations should be handled by the next available person rather than a specific individual.

Pool assignment provides greater flexibility and resilience, if one secretary is absent, another can pick up the work without any delay or manual intervention. It also supports more even distribution of workload across a team.

Which should you use?

Direct assignment is best when a specific individual’s involvement is required or preferred. Pool assignment is best for standard workflow where any qualified transcriptionist can complete the job and speed of turnaround is a priority. Many organisations use a combination of both — for example, routine correspondence goes to the pool, while sensitive or complex documents are assigned to a specific person.