Capacity Planning: Capacity reviews
Objective. Use the capacity-reviews screen to run a recurring plan review and explain that the artifact is an owned decision/approval, not just a dashboard, and that approving a review is not the same as executing the plan.
Capacity reviews are the governance layer: a recurring cadence where the plan and its assumptions are revisited with a named owner, so a plan is kept current and signed off rather than set once and forgotten.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
A Sales or CSM person opens this to answer 'is the plan being revisited and owned as reality moves?' A capacity plan decays the moment volume, shrinkage or attrition actuals diverge from assumptions. This screen frames the recurring review that keeps the plan honest and records who approved it.
The task
Scope to the plan under review and the period, then walk the review: what changed in the assumptions, what the gap is now, and what decision is being taken. The CSM move is to establish this as a routine with a named approver, not a one-off. Describe it as 'the review for this plan and period', not invented controls.
How to read it
A review's output is an owned decision and approval, not just a chart. Two misreads: treating the review dashboard as the value (the value is the decision and the named owner), and treating an approved review as an executed plan (approval authorises the plan; hiring and scheduling still have to happen). Read who approved and what was decided, not only the numbers.
Honest limits
This screen governs the plan; it does not execute hiring or scheduling, and an approval here is not proof of staffing. Confirm with product how approvals are recorded and who the approver roles are for a customer (see users and approvals). The review is only as good as the input validation that precedes it.
Interpretation check
A capacity review's value is an owned, recorded decision - not the dashboard - and approving a review authorises the plan, it does not execute the hiring or scheduling.
In the field
A quarterly QBR-style capacity review for a large account: the value a CSM points to is a signed-off plan with a named owner and tracked forecast accuracy, not merely that a dashboard was shown.
Practical task
Walk one plan review on the screen and write a three-line record: what assumption changed, the current gap, and the decision plus who owns it - framed as a decision, not just a reading.
Self-check
What is the actual deliverable of a capacity review?
A recorded decision with a named owner about the current plan and its assumptions - not the dashboard view itself. Governance and ownership are the point.
The plan was approved in review. Is staffing now handled?
No. Approval authorises the plan; hiring, training and scheduling still have to execute. Approval is a governance step, not an operational result.
Why run reviews on a cadence rather than once?
Assumptions drift as actuals come in. A plan set once decays; the cadence keeps it current and keeps forecast accuracy and skill gaps under active ownership.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at /#/reviews; exact controls and figures are SME-validation-pending.