Capacity Planning: Users and approvals
Objective. Validate who can edit and approve plans, and explain that access configuration is not the same as governance happening - an approver existing does not mean a plan is approved.
This configuration screen defines who can view, edit and approve capacity plans. A CSM validates the roles support the customer's governance, without re-engineering the access model.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
A CSM opens this to answer 'is the right person able to approve the plan, and is editing controlled?' A capacity plan is a decision with cost consequences, so who can change it and who signs it off matters. This screen holds those roles and permissions.
The task (validate, do not re-engineer)
Scope to the customer and confirm the approver and editor roles map to the people who actually own planning decisions, and that edit rights are appropriately restricted. This is validation and escalation - confirm the access supports governance; leave role-model design to the specialist. Describe it as 'the users and approval roles configured for this scope'.
How to read it
Access configuration is not proof that governance is happening. Two misreads: assuming that because an approver role exists, plans are actually being approved (approval is an event recorded in capacity reviews, not a permission), and treating edit access as equivalent to plan quality. Read this for whether the right people can do the right things; whether they actually review and approve is read on the capacity-reviews screen.
Honest limits
This screen does not prove any plan has been approved or reviewed - only who is permitted to. Confirm with product how approvals are recorded and which roles a customer should use. It is admin configuration; escalate role-model changes to the specialist rather than editing live.
Interpretation check
An approver role existing here is permission, not proof - a plan is only approved when that approval is actually recorded (in capacity reviews), not because the access is configured.
In the field
A large account's governance: the CSM confirms the finance or ops owner holds the approver role here, but points to the capacity-reviews record as the proof that sign-off actually happened.
Practical task
Review the users and approval roles for one scope and write one line confirming the approver maps to the real decision-owner, noting that approval itself is evidenced in capacity reviews, not here.
Self-check
An approver role is configured. Does that mean the plan is approved?
No. Access is permission, not an event. Actual approval is recorded in capacity reviews; configuration only shows who is allowed to approve.
What is the CSM validating on this screen?
That approver and editor roles map to the real planning decision-owners and that edit rights are suitably restricted - not redesigning the role model, which is a specialist task.
Why does controlling edit access matter for a capacity plan?
A capacity plan drives cost decisions; uncontrolled edits undermine its integrity and governance, so who can change and sign off the plan must match the customer's real ownership.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at /#/users; exact controls and figures are SME-validation-pending.