Plan review capacity without promising readiness

All 1,000 initial artifacts are ready at the start of week 1. The delivery manager proposes reviewing the first 500 in week 1 and the other 500 in week 2. Every learner receives an individual review, even if the implementation was built as a team. The sponsor has budgeted 25 reviewers and says: “That gives us 600 hours in two weeks, so every review cycle can finish by the end of week 2.”

Here are the exercise assumptions. Keep assumptions separate from observations.

Productive hours here are hours actually available for reading work, giving feedback and recording the review. They are not paid hours or contracted availability. Instruction, mentoring, calibration, support, leave and governance must be staffed separately; do not silently charge them to the same 12 hours. The exercise does not establish that any real reviewer has appropriate authority.

Calculate initial-review hours, further-review hours and total productive hours. Calculate productive capacity per week, then the theoretical reviewer count from total hours divided by two weeks of per-reviewer capacity. Round required people upward. State why this number is only an aggregate lower bound.

A completed review cycle means the scheduled reviews occurred. It does not mean the learner passed, earned a credential or is ready for placement. Track those separate decisions under their actual evidence and authority.

Fill this table for the manager's 500/500 plan. Carry pending work into the next week instead of marking it complete because budget remains.

Count the last batch's revision work even though it is not yet available in week 2. Distinguish idle reviewer time from finished learner work. Explain to the sponsor whether the original completion date follows from the assumptions. Do not solve a scheduling problem by reducing individual review, changing acceptance standards or recording a review that has not happened.

If the two-week deadline is fixed, calculate the reviewer count needed to finish all initial reviews in week 1 so their revisions are available in week 2. Assume, only for this alternative, that those additional qualified reviewers can be scheduled. Explain what availability and calibration evidence is missing before making that staffing promise. This is a possible schedule, not a hiring recommendation or proof that the program can expand.

The pilot now suggests that 60%, rather than 30%, may require another review. Treat this as a hypothetical new input, not an actual pilot result. Keep the 25-reviewer, 500/500 initial-review plan. Recalculate total demand and the week-2 queue. If initial reviews retain priority in week 2, show which revision work carries into week 3 and how much capacity week 3 needs.

Then list three assumptions that a real pilot must replace with evidence:

• Review duration distribution, including difficult artifacts and recording time.
• Revision rate, number of cycles and when learners actually resubmit.
• Reviewer availability, scope of authority, calibration and support demand.

A small pilot's mean is not a guarantee. Record sample size, course stage, work type and uncertainty. Use a range when scheduling; agree the action when a backlog exceeds capacity. Possible actions include changing intake timing or securing qualified capacity, not lowering the evidence required from learners.

Write a short sponsor note stating the base demand, the calendar constraint, the changed-assumption consequence and a proposed next intake decision. Attach one named role to each unknown: program owner, reviewer lead or learner-support lead. In this simulation use role placeholders, not invented people or approvals.

Give a partner your table and ask them to locate the final batch's revision work without explanation. Have them challenge a staffing assumption and ask what would stop the next intake wave. Record the actual question and your revised answer. If working alone, label this self-review.

Keep your calculations, proposed schedule, assumptions and receiver observation with the capstone packet. The protected Academy capstone explains the worked interpretation after your attempt. Program licensing, provisioned seats, course completion, provider credentials and field qualification remain separate facts; a capacity spreadsheet does not establish any of them.

The base exercise assumed every reviewer could review either pass. Challenge that assumption with this separate fictional cohort of 360 learners, not an additional batch of 1,000. This extension adds twenty-five minutes. Its roles and weekly barriers are supplied planning rules, not this platform's qualification policy or evidence that any actual reviewer is authorized.

Define the handoffs before adding the hours (5 minutes)

Keep the same 25 reviewers and 12 productive hours each per week. Twenty have the general-review role; five have the specialist role. Do not transfer work between roles or assume dual authorization. The existing total of 30 minutes for an initial review and 20 minutes for a revision now has two distinct stages:

No further revision cycle is supplied. A stage completed early in a week still does not make the next stage available that same week. This artificial barrier makes the scheduling problem explicit; a real program must observe actual handoff and resubmission times. A completed review is not a passing decision.

Before calculating, draw the four stages and label the responsible role and earliest next-week handoff. A specialist's available hours cannot make an unavailable revised artifact appear sooner.

Schedule each role without borrowing authority (8 minutes)

Calculate weekly general and specialist capacity separately. Then calculate their initial work and the revision work for the 108 revised artifacts. Keep your first schedule before reading the interpretation below.

After preserving your attempt, compare this worked schedule. General capacity is 240 hours per week; specialist capacity is 60. Initial work takes 120 general hours and 60 specialist hours. Revision work takes 18 hours in each role. Total work is 216 hours, but the four stage dependencies prevent finishing the cohort in one week even though aggregate weekly capacity is 300 hours.

Week 1 completes 360 initial general reviews in 120 hours. Week 2 completes their specialist stage in 60 hours. Week 3 completes 108 revised general reviews in 18 hours; week 4 completes their specialist stage in another 18 hours. Record the intervening waits. The earliest completion of this supplied schedule is week 4. Calling the unused general hours “spare specialist capacity” would silently change the role assumption rather than repair the plan.

Receive a competing commitment (7 minutes)

The specialist lead now reports that 20 of week 2's 60 hours are already reserved for another cohort. Keep those hours reserved. All other supplied availability and stage rules remain unchanged. Revise your schedule before reading the interpretation. Do not reduce review duration or standards.

Forty available specialist hours complete 240 initial artifacts in week 2; 120 wait for week 3, needing 20 hours. The first batch yields 72 revisions whose general stage takes 12 hours in week 3 and specialist stage takes 12 hours in week 4. The remaining batch yields 36 revisions: six general hours in week 4 and six specialist hours in week 5. Total demand is still 216 hours, but the last required stage now finishes in week 5. Retain both schedules and identify which handoff moved each affected batch.

This is why the program needs the reservation, role and arrival time beside an aggregate staffing figure. The original total hours did not become wrong; they were insufficient to justify the date. In a real program, ask the reviewer lead for appropriately scoped availability and the learner-support lead for revision arrival evidence before committing an intake.

Give the sponsor one decision they can make (5 minutes)

Write a five-sentence note: the unchanged workload, the constrained role/week, the shifted final handoff, one feasible intake decision and the evidence or authorization that decision still needs. Use role placeholders, not invented approvals. A proposal to add specialist capacity needs evidence of the actual reviewers' scope and availability; a general seat cannot supply it by relabeling.

Give a partner your schedule and ask them to locate the 36 revised artifacts without your explanation. Record their actual path and one question. If alone, label self-review. Keep role | stage | artifact count | arrival week | reserved capacity | completion week | remaining evidence with your capacity proposal. Do not describe these authored numbers as a staffed delivery commitment or qualification throughput.