Capacity Planning Across Projects: What Good Looks Like Versus What Bad Looks Like
Cross-project capacity planning is the practice of tracking and allocating the total available capacity of people and equipment across a portfolio of concurrent projects, to ensure that the demands of the portfolio do not exceed available supply. In most organisations with multiple concurrent projects, this planning is either absent or done informally -- which means projects are approved and started without a realistic assessment of whether the resources to execute them are actually available.
The consequences of poor cross-project capacity planning are predictable: resource contention between projects, key staff assigned to too many concurrent projects, schedule delays caused by resource unavailability, and projects that cannot accelerate because the resources to do so are committed elsewhere. Here is what good cross-project capacity planning looks like versus what bad looks like.
What Bad Capacity Planning Looks Like
Bad: Resources are allocated by role, not by name. When a project plan says 'we need a senior project manager 50% of the time for 6 months,' but does not name which project manager, the resource is not committed. Any named individual in that role will have competing commitments that the unnamed allocation cannot account for.
Bad: The portfolio has no total capacity limit. Projects are approved based on individual business cases without a portfolio-level check of whether total resource demand across all approved projects exceeds available supply. This leads to a portfolio that is over-committed by 30-50%, where every project is delayed because all shared resources are contended.
Bad: Resource conflicts are resolved informally. When two projects need the same key person at the same time, the conflict is resolved by whoever shouts loudest or has the most senior sponsor. This is not capacity management -- it is escalation management.
Bad: Capacity planning happens only at project initiation. Once a project is approved and resourced, the resource plan is not updated as scope changes, timelines shift, or people become unavailable due to leave or departure.
What Good Capacity Planning Looks Like
Good: Resources are allocated by name, with a specific percent allocation and a specific time period. 'Jane Smith, 60% allocation, months 1-6' is a resource commitment. 'A senior project manager, 60% allocation' is a placeholder.
Good: A portfolio capacity view is maintained and updated at least monthly. The capacity view shows the total demand for each resource (or resource type) across all active projects versus available supply. When the view shows demand exceeding supply, a decision is required -- not deferred.
Good: Capacity constraints are a mandatory input to the project prioritization process. No project is approved without a confirmed resource commitment. If the required resources are not available, the project either waits or trades priority with a project that has already been approved.
Good: Capacity plans are updated when material changes occur. A key team member going on extended leave, a project scope increase, or a new urgent project starting all trigger a capacity plan update and a review of potential conflicts.
XNM provides project management advisory services to public-sector and capital-project clients, including portfolio management and resource planning. Reach out to XNM's program & project delivery advisory team to discuss cross-project capacity planning and resource management for your organisation.