Resource Allocation and Capacity Planning
Resource planning across multiple projects usually lives in a spreadsheet that someone updates manually whenever a new project gets staffed, and that spreadsheet almost never captures the reality that most people are allocated fractionally across several projects at once. Someone can look fully available on paper because no single project shows them at 100%, while in reality they're at 40% on one project, 40% on another, and just got asked to give 50% to a third, and nobody catches the overcommitment until deadlines start slipping or the person burns out. Reconciling this manually across a portfolio of active projects is slow enough that it usually only happens reactively, after a problem has already surfaced.
STARTING PRICE
From €299
Standard tier · Multi-step workflow with AI extraction/decisioning and 2-3 integrations.
Get a quote →Saves roughly 3-6 hrs/week for resourcing managers, plus fewer burnout-driven departures.
How the automation works
We track actual resource allocation across every active project in one continuously updated view, pulling planned and logged time from your PM tools rather than relying on a manually maintained spreadsheet, and calculate true combined utilization per person across all their concurrent assignments, not just within a single project. When a new project is being staffed, the tool shows real available capacity per person, factoring in every existing partial allocation, so a request to add someone at 30% to a new project surfaces immediately if that would push them over 100% combined. Overallocation and chronic near-100% utilization are flagged proactively on a rolling basis, not just at staffing time, so burnout risk from allocation creep gets caught before it shows up as missed deadlines or attrition.
Process flow
- 01
Pull allocation data across projects integration
Planned and logged allocation percentages are pulled from every active project in the connected PM tools, not just the project currently being planned.
- 02
Aggregate true combined utilization ai
Each person's allocations across all concurrent projects are summed into a true combined utilization figure, catching overcommitment that's invisible within any single project's view.
- 03
Check capacity before new staffing ai
When a new project request comes in, available capacity per candidate resource is checked against their real combined utilization before they're assigned.
- 04
Flag overallocation and burnout risk ai
People running at or near full combined utilization for an extended period are flagged proactively on a rolling basis, not just when a new staffing request surfaces the conflict.
- 05
Deliver capacity dashboard output
A live capacity dashboard shows true availability per person and per team, used both for staffing decisions and for ongoing workload health monitoring.
Inputs
- Planned and logged allocation data across all active projects
- Project timelines and resourcing needs
- Individual capacity/FTE baselines
- Historical utilization patterns
Outputs
- True combined utilization per person across projects
- Available capacity report for new staffing decisions
- Overallocation and burnout-risk flags
- Live cross-project capacity dashboard
Works with
Prefer a fully custom build instead of an off-the-shelf integration? We scope both options during your free consultation — most jobs like this one work fine on standard connectors, but higher-volume or non-standard systems sometimes need bespoke API work, reflected in the complex tier.
Where this goes wrong if you get it wrong
- The core failure mode this exists to fix is exactly what naive single-project views miss: someone can look available within any one project's resourcing plan while being genuinely overcommitted across three projects combined — the calculation has to aggregate real allocation across every concurrent project, not just the one being planned, or it recreates the same blind spot it's meant to solve.
- Allocation percentages entered at project kickoff routinely go stale as project scope and timelines shift — someone planned at 20% for a project that's now in a crunch period is often working well above that in practice, so the tool needs logged time or a lightweight reconciliation check against planned allocation, not just the original plan taken at face value.
- Not all hours are equal for capacity purposes — a senior specialist's 20% allocation on a critical-path task can matter more for schedule risk than a generalist's 50% on non-critical work, so capacity planning needs to weigh criticality and skill fit alongside raw percentage, or the numbers look balanced while the actual project risk isn't.
- Flagging someone as overallocated is only useful if there's a real resolution path — surfacing the conflict without a process for reprioritizing, delaying a project, or bringing in additional capacity just turns the dashboard into a list of known problems nobody has authority to fix.
Frequently asked questions
How does this catch overallocation that a single project's resourcing plan wouldn't show?
It aggregates every person's allocation across all their concurrent projects into one combined utilization figure, so a partial commitment on three separate projects that individually look fine gets caught as a genuine overcommitment when summed.
Does it use planned allocation or actual logged time?
Both — planned allocation drives the forward-looking capacity check for new staffing, and logged time is used to reconcile against the plan and catch when reality has drifted from what was originally allocated.
Can it account for different skill levels, not just raw percentage available?
Yes, capacity checks can be weighted by role, skill, and criticality of the work, so a specialist's limited availability on critical-path work is treated differently than general availability.
What happens when someone is flagged as overallocated?
It surfaces on the capacity dashboard with the specific projects and percentages driving the overallocation, giving the resourcing manager the detail needed to reprioritize or renegotiate commitments.