Capacity Planning: People metrics
Objective. Read people-level signals - occupancy target, utilisation, attrition - as planning assumptions about supply, not as measured live performance.
This screen answers: what people-level factors shape our available capacity over the horizon? Attrition and occupancy assumptions quietly erode or stretch supply.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
The customer question is: what people factors - planned occupancy, utilisation, attrition - affect how much capacity we can actually count on. A CSM validates them; a rep uses them to show supply is modelled, not assumed static.
The task
Read the people metrics relevant to available capacity for the scope. Separate the planning assumptions (a target occupancy, a projected attrition rate) from anything presented as a current figure.
How to read it
These metrics inform the supply assumptions - projected attrition erodes future availability, and a planned occupancy target stretches or limits how much work each head can absorb. A people metric on this planning screen is an input, not live performance. The classic misread is treating a planning occupancy target as measured occupancy, or a projected attrition rate as a known fact. Attrition in particular is a projection; it will move, and the plan should be revisited when it does.
Honest limits
Metric definitions and sources must be confirmed with product. These signals shape the plan; actual performance - real occupancy, real utilisation - lives in RTA and Work Output, not here. A planned figure is an assumption about the future, not a record of the present.
Interpretation check
People metrics here are planning assumptions about supply (a planned occupancy target, a projected attrition rate), not measured live performance.
Practical task
Read the people metrics for a scope, identify one that is a planning assumption rather than an actual, and write one line on how it would change available capacity if revised.
Self-check
A customer reads the occupancy figure here as their actual occupancy. What is wrong?
On this planning screen it is a target assumption, not measured occupancy. Real, measured occupancy lives in RTA - confusing the two misstates both the plan and performance.
How does projected attrition affect the plan?
It erodes future available capacity. Because it is a projection that will move, the plan should be revisited as attrition changes rather than set once.
Where does actual people performance live, if not here?
In RTA and Work Output. This screen holds planning assumptions, not records of actual performance.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at /#/people; exact controls and figures are SME-validation-pending.