A weekly plan that shows where help is needed
This worked example shows how a manager can agree which requests fit this week, and what must change before committing to the rest. Edit the amber cells in the worksheet to try your own assumptions.
Synthetic example: every number is invented. These are planning assumptions, not historical results or a forecast.
One week, two different roles
| Weekly assumption or result | Preparation | Review |
|---|---|---|
| Hours per request | 2 | 0.5 |
| People | 2 | 1 |
| Scheduled hours per person | 40 | 40 |
| Other commitments, total for the role | 12 hours | 8 hours |
| Absence, total for the role | 8 hours | 8 hours |
| Available hours | 2 × 40 − 12 − 8 = 60 | 1 × 40 − 8 − 8 = 24 |
| Hours needed | 36 × 2 = 72 | 36 × 0.5 = 18 |
| Uncovered hours | 12 | 0 |
| Unused hours | 0 | 6 |
On a narrow screen, scroll the table sideways. The worksheet keeps these assumptions editable.
Other commitments include meetings, admin and other assigned work during attended time. Subtract each hour once: do not include absence again in those commitments. The assumed 40-hour week is an example, not a legal or company-policy recommendation.
Agree the change before promising the date
- Keep 36 requests: arrange 12 net productive hours from someone qualified to prepare them. Subtract any onboarding or supervision time before counting the extra help.
- Keep current preparation hours: 30 requests use 60 preparation hours and 15 review hours. Reschedule six requests only after checking there is room in the later period.
- Test a possible process change: an assumed 1.75 preparation hours per request would need 63 hours, leaving a three-hour gap. This is an unproven scenario. Measure the change before using it for commitments.
What the worksheet cannot decide
Six unused review hours cannot fill the preparation gap unless someone is qualified and permitted to do that work. No role substitution, overtime or productivity improvement is built into the result.
The example assumes average effort for a similar group of requests. It does not model urgent arrivals, different request types, rework or a buffer for uncertainty. Check those separately using your team's records. Weekly totals also cannot prove a daily schedule: preparation must finish early enough for review.
A recurring gap can support a discussion about continuing help, changing the process or hiring. One busy week alone is not a permanent staffing recommendation. Check costs, skills, availability and timing first.
Try a change, then check the result
Open the worksheet and change the amber inputs. Reducing planned requests to 30 removes the preparation gap. Increasing preparation absence from eight to 16 hours raises that gap to 20 hours.
Delete the request count, enter text, use a negative number, or enter absence and other commitments above scheduled hours: the affected result must say “Check inputs”. Fractional people or requests and zero effort per request are also blocked. Zero planned requests is valid and shows no planned work. Zero people is valid only with zero commitments and absence; it shows no available hours.