{"slug":"team-capacity-planner","name":"Team capacity planner","category":"Management","customer":"Agency resource managers","problem":"Commitments exceed realistic team availability.","value":"For agency resource managers, turn declared availability, estimates and current assignments into capacity scenarios and assignment proposals. Address the recurring problem: commitments exceed realistic team availability. The value hypothesis is a more complete, reviewable deliverable with less repeated preparation; the pilot must establish whether that benefit is real.","format":"Assumption-driven planning and decision workspace","screens":"Key screens: Capacity calendar, workload scenarios, assignment review. Place editable drivers and constraints beside a clearly labeled scenario output. Include a baseline view, comparison chart or schedule, and an assumptions history. Let users trace a proposed quantity or date back to its inputs. Keep forecasts distinct from actual results. In this product, the first view is capacity calendar, followed by workload scenarios and assignment review.","functionality":"1. Normalize work estimates. 2. Account for leave. 3. Compare commitments. 4. Flag overload. 5. Model reassignment. 6. Capture manager decisions.","workflow":"Validate baseline inputs, confirm definitions and constraints, select editable assumptions, calculate feasible alternatives, inspect sensitivities, let the responsible person approve a plan, and compare later actuals with the recorded assumptions. Start with declared availability, estimates and current assignments and finish with capacity scenarios and assignment proposals.","ai":"Extract input context and explain scenario differences. Use deterministic calculations or explicit optimization for quantities, compatibility, dates and prices. Show uncertain assumptions. Never let generated prose silently change the calculation rules.","inputs":"Declared availability, estimates and current assignments","deliverables":"Capacity scenarios and assignment proposals","admin":"Scenario versions, baseline reconciliation, constraint checks, assumption ownership, reviewer approvals, plan exports and actual-versus-plan tracking.","mvp":"Begin with agency resource managers and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: normalize work estimates; account for leave. Provide operator assistance for the third module: compare commitments. Deliver capacity scenarios and assignment proposals through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.","expansion":"After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: flag overload; model reassignment; capture manager decisions. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.","usp":"Declared capacity and explicit estimates with uncertainty visible.","defensibility":"A validated domain model, customer-approved constraints and forecast or decision history that improves practical planning. For this solution, build around declared capacity and explicit estimates with uncertainty visible. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.","alternatives":"Spreadsheets, planners, specialist forecasting tools and existing scheduling or configuration software. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: declared capacity and explicit estimates with uncertainty visible. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.","revenue":"Test USD 750-3,000 for a scoped planning setup and review, then USD 200-900 monthly for refreshes within agreed complexity. Data integration and optimization are separately scoped. All ranges are hypotheses.","costs":"Data preparation, domain modeling, validation, scenario computation, reviewer support and ongoing assumption maintenance.","integrations":"Team updates, calendars, project records and agreed management routines. Read-only operational exports, calendars and finance or inventory records as relevant. Start with plan exports and retain human approval for execution. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.","dependencies":"A defensible calculation model, explicit units, constraint validation and representative boundary tests. Advanced forecasting or optimization needs adequate historical data.","pilot":"Reproduce a known historical plan, test missing inputs and boundary constraints, then run a new scenario. Compare feasibility, reconciliation and observed error rather than judging the quality of the explanation alone. For this solution, use declared availability, estimates and current assignments and evaluate capacity scenarios and assignment proposals. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for overcommitment incidents, forecast error. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.","plan30":"Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: agency resource managers. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a capacity review for an upcoming delivery period. Week 3: present it through agency operations advisers and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot. Week 4: review overcommitment incidents, forecast error, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.","metrics":"Overcommitment incidents, forecast error","channels":"Agency operations advisers","leadMagnet":"A capacity review for an upcoming delivery period","message":"Team capacity planner for agency resource managers. Declared capacity and explicit estimates with uncertainty visible. Demonstrate the claim through a capacity review for an upcoming delivery period.","retention":"Refresh inputs, compare recorded assumptions with actual outcomes and refine validated constraints. Expand scenario complexity only when the buyer uses it for a decision.","controls":"Confirm owners, decisions and commitments. Keep employee discussion notes access-controlled and avoid covert individual performance inference. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.","crossSector":"Operations; Human Resources; Finance","fn":["Normalize work estimates","Account for leave","Compare commitments","Flag overload","Model reassignment","Capture manager decisions"],"sc":{"opp":8,"pain":6,"feas":7,"now":7},"phases":[{"name":"MVP","scope":"One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: normalize work estimates; account for leave. Manual review in the loop.","time":{"days":5,"label":"5 days"},"usd":9000},{"name":"Paid pilot","scope":"Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.","time":{"days":6,"label":"6 days"},"usd":11000},{"name":"Full product","scope":"Remaining modules: flag overload; model reassignment; capture manager decisions. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.","time":{"days":11,"label":"2 weeks"},"usd":15000}],"running":[{"stage":"MVP and paid pilot","note":"about 3 customers","hosting":[30,60],"ai":[50,100],"total":[80,160]},{"stage":"Full product","note":"about 50 customers","hosting":[110,210],"ai":[350,700],"total":[460,910]}],"total":35000,"complexity":0.57,"days":22,"shot":true,"demo":true}