Make spare capacity usable

Define what the capacity figure counts

Begin with a dated baseline and a definition of the unit. A building’s planning capacity, usable rooms and staffed service places answer different questions. Likewise, authorized positions, filled posts and people available for a particular shift need separate records. Preserve those distinctions when combining information from several systems.

Reconcile changes in the denominator before describing a trend. If a location’s stated capacity rises because its rooms were reclassified, a lower utilization rate may reflect that revised definition. Record the source, measurement date, exclusions and unresolved differences beside the calculation so another reviewer can reproduce the starting point.

Test every receiving location

An aggregate calculation is a useful first screen. The next test assigns the incoming workload to individual receiving locations while respecting each location’s limit. Where the work involves whole people or complete service units, apply whole-unit limits consistently. A rounded percentage can conceal a placement that does not fit.

Consider an illustrative service with two centers, each limited to 90 appointments in the period being tested. One already has 80 appointments and the other has 60. Thirty additional appointments fit across the combined 40 available slots. But if 20 require a specialist available only at the first center, its ten remaining slots cannot accommodate them. The aggregate result survives only if the service requirement or delivery arrangement can genuinely change.

A useful comparison therefore states both the permissible allocation and the constraint that could invalidate it. Test the boundary values as well as the preferred example. This makes the margin for growth, absence or a revised input visible.

Build a deliverable service schedule

Translate the proposed allocation into rooms, qualified staff, equipment, operating hours and access arrangements. Show what the receiving operation already delivers and what will be added. A person assigned to a new activity cannot simultaneously provide the same hours elsewhere.

Account for travel and handoffs where service moves between locations. A short straight-line distance does not establish a workable journey, and total weekly staff hours do not establish coverage at the required time. Compare the actual duties, overlaps and likely exceptions.

Give each unresolved requirement an evidence owner and a completion test. For example, a staffing input is ready when the required role, qualification, hours and coverage are confirmed. Listing a department as a proposed participant does not establish that it has accepted the work.

Follow the cost that would actually change

Keep the current funded baseline, transition expenditure and continuing costs in separate parts of the comparison. Identify the costs that end, the costs that move and the costs introduced at receiving locations. Include any period when both arrangements must operate together.

A reduction in authorized positions may leave cash spending unchanged when the positions were already vacant. Redeployment can improve service without reducing payroll. A released building can continue to incur security, maintenance or other holding costs. Give each proposed saving a specific expense, timing and reason it becomes avoidable.

Mark missing prices as unpriced. A blank input or a planning allowance should remain visible until the scope and evidence support an estimate. The financial conclusion needs the same discipline as the capacity calculation.

Make the recommendation conditional on readiness

Use one comparison sheet for each retained alternative: baseline demand, receiving allocation, service schedule, staffing, transition requirements, annual cash flows and remaining conditions. Compare service quality and access in their own measures alongside utilization. An option can improve one measure while creating a burden elsewhere.

Gaskin’s independent NNPS Efficiency and Capacity Proposal applies this approach to school planning. The work separates capacity tests from grade placement, service delivery, transportation and full implementation costs. It is a proposal for readiness and validation; NNPS has not commissioned it, and it does not establish implemented changes or realized savings.

The method gives a decision-maker a practical next step: identify the remaining condition that could change the choice, obtain the evidence needed to test it, and approve only the work the completed comparison supports.