Capacity Planning - Certification Assessment

Scenario A - the sales defensibility case

A contact-centre operations leader says: 'We plan headcount in a spreadsheet. Our total FTE nets out balanced for the quarter, so I think we are fine - I just need the number to take to finance. Show me what your tool adds.'

The learner must, in a live demo:

1. Reframe 'the number' as 'the requirement plus its drivers' and explain why a buried number is the problem.
2. Show required vs available capacity and drill into balancing to demonstrate that the net-balanced total hides a specific skill short at a specific interval.
3. Run one what-if changing a single assumption (volume or shrinkage) and interpret it as sensitivity, explicitly as a simulation - not an executed plan.
4. State the limitation out loud: seeded data, output only as good as inputs, forecast is a projection with error bars, accuracy is backtested not guaranteed, method/source confirm-with-product.
5. Close on defensibility to finance and keep any freed-capacity figure separate from cash.

The learner is scored on whether they make the balance-versus-coverage point and whether they keep simulation, projection and requirement distinct throughout.

Scenario B - the CSM input-validation review

A customer's planner hands over a freshly generated plan and says: 'The system says we need 142 FTE next quarter and the service level shows green, so we are good to hire to that.' The CSM must run a validation review before the number is trusted.

The learner must:

1. Identify that 142 is a requirement computed under assumptions, not a fact, and that a green service level is an input the plan is sized to, not an achieved result.
2. Run the six-input validation: volume source and seasonality, handling standards vs real mix, shrinkage (flag it as the biggest distorter and confirm it is the customer's real figure, not a default), skills coverage/currency, service goal, forecast accuracy and bias.
3. Read coverage by skill and interval, not the net 142, and surface at least one gap the total hides.
4. Separate what the CSM validates from what escalates to the implementation specialist (forecasting method, model changes, integration/source mechanics, anything touching security/compliance).
5. Record which figures are real versus placeholder and name the approver and review cadence.

Scored on whether the learner refuses to trust the number before validation and whether they read coverage correctly.

Scored checklist - what a correct response contains

Score each item; target is >=80 percent of available points with no critical error.

• Category discipline (25): names every figure as projection, simulation, or requirement; never presents a scenario as executed or a forecast as guaranteed.
• Balance vs coverage (20): reads required vs available by skill and interval and surfaces a gap the headline total hides.
• Input validation (20): runs the six inputs; flags shrinkage (and standards) as the biggest distorters and insists they are the customer's measured figures, not defaults.
• Honest limits stated (15): states the seeded-data/input-validity limitation out loud and routes method/source/model/security questions to confirm-with-product or the specialist.
• Capacity vs cash (10): keeps any freed-FTE or capacity figure separate from a cash claim.
• Next step and ownership (10): proposes a concrete next step (build on the customer's real inputs) and names an owner/approver and review cadence.

Manager review confirms the learner could run this live, not just describe it.

Critical errors - these fail the assessment

Any one of these fails the learner regardless of other points, because each would mislead a customer:

• Presenting a projection as a result - stating the volume forecast or a forecast-accuracy figure as what will happen, rather than a projection with error bars that is backtested, not guaranteed.
• Presenting a simulation as execution - treating a chosen scenario, a what-if, or an approved capacity review as if people were hired or scheduled or a service result achieved.
• Accepting a net FTE balance as proof of coverage - declaring staffing solved from a balanced total without reading skill and interval.
• Trusting a requirement without validating inputs - presenting a computed FTE (or a green service level) as fact without checking shrinkage, standards and volume are the customer's real figures.
• Converting capacity to cash - presenting a freed-FTE figure as money saved.
• Asserting an unverified specific - claiming a forecasting method, data source, integration or security/compliance fact instead of routing it to confirm-with-product.

A single critical error means not-yet-certified, with a specific re-teach pointer.

How this ties to the certification gate

This assessment is the app-specific practical for the Capacity Planning certification. The gate, from grounding, is: practical score at least 80, no critical error committed, and manager review. A learner can score well on framing and still fail on a single critical error - that is deliberate, because the critical errors are exactly the statements that would damage customer trust or set a false expectation.

For Sales, this complements the S04 evidence-led demo and S10 customer simulation; for CSM, the C05 metric-investigation and C08 value-proof work. The manager reviewing confirms two things the written answers cannot: that the learner can hold the honesty line live under customer pressure ('just give me the number', 'our FTE is balanced', 'so we'll hit SLA'), and that they read coverage by skill and interval in the actual demo rather than reciting that they would. Re-teach pointers route back to the concept, misinterpretations and data-setup modules for whichever distinction the learner missed.