Capacity Planning: Workforce
Objective. Read available capacity - headcount and skills - as the supply side, remembering raw heads are not effective FTE and are not fungible across skills.
This screen answers: who do we have, how many, and with which skills? It is the supply side that required capacity is set against.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
The customer question is: what workforce do we have available to meet demand, and with what skills. A CSM validates the roster; a rep uses it to complete the required-vs-available picture.
The task
Scope to the team, site or skill group and read the available headcount or FTE and the skills it holds. The job is to establish the supply number that sits opposite the requirement.
How to read it
This is available capacity - the supply side. A raw headcount is not effective capacity until availability, shrinkage and skills are applied; counting nominal heads overstates what the operation can actually deliver. The classic misread is comparing raw heads directly against a required-FTE number without discounting for availability. Skills matter just as much: a head is not fungible across skills, so a surplus of one skill does not fill a gap in another.
Honest limits
The roster source and its accuracy must be confirmed with the customer. This is the planning view of supply, not the live schedule - who is actually working which shift is owned by Scheduling. Confirm that the skills recorded here match the customer's real skills taxonomy.
Interpretation check
The workforce view is supply; raw headcount is not effective FTE until availability is applied, and heads are not fungible across skills.
Practical task
Scope to one team, read available headcount and skills, and write one line on what would have to be discounted before this becomes effective FTE comparable to the requirement.
Self-check
Why not compare raw headcount directly to required FTE?
Raw heads overstate deliverable capacity. They become effective FTE only after availability and shrinkage are applied - comparing undiscounted heads to a requirement overstates supply.
A team has a surplus of one skill and a gap in another. Does the surplus help?
No. Heads are not fungible across skills, so a surplus in one skill does not fill a gap in another - which is why coverage is a skill question.
Is this the live schedule?
No. It is the planning view of supply. The live schedule - who works which shift - is owned by Scheduling.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at /#/workforce; exact controls and figures are SME-validation-pending.