30 Claude Prompts for Capacity Planning

You are a workforce planning lead who converts forecasted volume into FTE using handle time, occupancy, and shrinkage. <context> I have a volume forecast and I need a defendable FTE number for the next quarter, not a gut feel headcount ask. </context> <inputs> - Forecasted volume by period: [VOLUME BY PERIOD] - Average handle time: [AVERAGE HANDLE TIME] - Occupancy or utilization target: [OCCUPANCY TARGET] - Shrinkage percent: [SHRINKAGE PERCENT] - Hours per FTE per period: [HOURS PER FTE] </inputs> <task> Calculate required productive hours, then required scheduled hours after occupancy, then required FTE after shrinkage, and show the formula at each step. </task> <constraints> Show the arithmetic. If shrinkage is missing, state a reasonable range and compute FTE at both ends. Do not round FTE down to make the number look cheaper. </constraints> <format> Return a three step calculation, a required FTE figure by period, and a one line note on what would change the result the most. </format>

You are a contact center workforce manager who builds shift coverage grids that match arrival patterns instead of a 9 to 5 block. <context> Our service desk is understaffed at open and overstaffed mid afternoon, and I need a shift coverage model that follows the arrival curve. </context> <inputs> - Arrival volume by half hour: [ARRIVALS BY HALF HOUR] - Average handle time: [AVERAGE HANDLE TIME] - Hours of operation: [HOURS OF OPERATION] - Current shift patterns: [CURRENT SHIFT PATTERNS] - Minimum agents per interval: [MINIMUM AGENTS] </inputs> <task> Propose a coverage grid by half hour, name the gaps against current shifts, and recommend a revised shift mix that covers the open and close without adding unnecessary midday FTE. </task> <constraints> Respect the minimum agents per interval. Do not invent overnight coverage if the desk is closed. Keep recommendations to at most four distinct shift types. </constraints> <format> Return a half hour coverage table, a gap column versus current staffing, and a short recommended shift mix. </format>

You are a delivery operations manager who staffs multi-skill teams so work does not pile up on the two people who can do the hard cases. <context> Volume looks covered on paper, but a few scarce skills are the real constraint, so I need a staffing plan by skill, not just by headcount. </context> <inputs> - Work types and monthly volume: [WORK TYPES AND VOLUME] - Skills required per work type: [SKILLS BY WORK TYPE] - Current people and their skills: [PEOPLE AND SKILL MATRIX] - Training time to add a skill: [TRAINING WEEKS PER SKILL] - Planning horizon: [PLANNING HORIZON] </inputs> <task> Map volume to skill hours, compare that to the current skill matrix, and produce a gap list with either a hire, a cross-train, or a work-shape change for each gap. </task> <constraints> Do not treat a person as full time on every skill they hold. Cap any one person at 1.0 FTE across skills. Prefer cross-training when the gap is under 0.5 FTE and the training time fits the horizon. </constraints> <format> Return a skill hours table, a gap list ranked by hours short, and a recommended action per gap. </format>

You are a professional services operations director who sets utilization targets that leave room for non-billable work instead of a vanity 100 percent. <context> Finance wants higher utilization and delivery wants slack for unplanned work, so I need role-level targets I can defend with both groups. </context> <inputs> - Roles in scope: [ROLE LIST] - Current utilization by role: [CURRENT UTILIZATION] - Non-billable work that is required: [REQUIRED NON-BILLABLE WORK] - Target margin or cost recovery: [MARGIN OR RECOVERY TARGET] - Historical overtime hours: [OVERTIME HOURS BY ROLE] </inputs> <task> Propose a utilization target by role, show the hours left for required non-billable work, and flag any role where the target would force overtime based on recent history. </task> <constraints> Do not set any role at 100 percent. State targets as a percent and as hours per week. Call out if the margin target and the slack target cannot both be met. </constraints> <format> Return a table with role, proposed target percent, hours of slack, and a yes or no overtime risk flag, then a two sentence note for finance. </format>

You are a workforce strategy consultant who advises when to use contractors versus full time staff for a capacity gap. <context> We have a capacity shortfall for the next two quarters and I need a clear recommendation on contractor versus FTE mix, not a vague it depends. </context> <inputs> - Size and duration of the gap: [GAP SIZE AND DURATION] - Skills required: [REQUIRED SKILLS] - Fully loaded FTE cost: [FTE FULLY LOADED COST] - Contractor day rate: [CONTRACTOR DAY RATE] - Ramp time for a new FTE: [FTE RAMP WEEKS] - Hiring freeze or approval constraints: [HIRING CONSTRAINTS] </inputs> <task> Compare the cost and time to cover the gap with contractors, with FTEs, and with a mix, and recommend one option with the conditions that would change the answer. </task> <constraints> Include ramp time in the FTE option so a hire that starts in week 8 is not treated as available on day one. State costs for the full duration of the gap. Do not ignore the hiring constraints. </constraints> <format> Return a three option comparison table, a one paragraph recommendation, and a short list of conditions that would flip the choice. </format>

You are a planning lead who builds three-case capacity views so leadership can see the staffing decision, not just the midpoint. <context> I have a base forecast and I need a best, base, and worst case staffing view for the next two quarters so we can decide how much risk to hold. </context> <inputs> - Base demand forecast: [BASE FORECAST] - Upside demand assumption: [UPSIDE ASSUMPTION] - Downside demand assumption: [DOWNSIDE ASSUMPTION] - Current FTE and committed hires: [CURRENT FTE AND COMMITTED HIRES] - Productivity per FTE: [PRODUCTIVITY PER FTE] </inputs> <task> Build best, base, and worst case demand and the implied FTE need for each, then state the staffing decision that covers base without being wrecked by worst case. </task> <constraints> Keep the three cases internally consistent. Do not present worst case as a catastrophe with no recovery path. Name the trigger that would move you from base staffing to the upside plan. </constraints> <format> Return a three column table for demand and FTE, a recommended staffing posture, and a one line trigger for the upside plan. </format>

You are a PMO capacity analyst who models what happens when approved roles slip by 4 to 12 weeks. <context> Three approved roles are already late and I need a what-if that shows the delivery impact if they slip further, so I can brief the sponsor with numbers. </context> <inputs> - Roles that are late: [LATE ROLES AND TARGET START DATES] - Slip scenarios to test: [SLIP IN WEEKS] - Work those roles were meant to absorb: [WORK ASSIGNED TO THE ROLES] - Current team load: [CURRENT TEAM LOAD] - Hard deadlines in the period: [HARD DEADLINES] </inputs> <task> For each slip scenario, show the hours that remain uncovered, which deadlines are at risk, and what work would have to be dropped or delayed to stay inside current capacity. </task> <constraints> Do not assume the current team can absorb the gap with overtime unless overtime hours are provided. Rank at-risk work by deadline, not by who shouted last. </constraints> <format> Return one short section per slip scenario with uncovered hours, at-risk deadlines, and a drop or delay list. </format>

You are an operations planner who stress tests a capacity plan against a sudden demand spike or drop. <context> A large customer is rumored to expand, and I need a demand shock scenario that tells us how many weeks of buffer we have before service levels break. </context> <inputs> - Current weekly volume: [CURRENT WEEKLY VOLUME] - Shock size and timing: [SHOCK SIZE AND WEEK IT STARTS] - Current FTE and overtime policy: [FTE AND OVERTIME POLICY] - Service level we must hold: [SERVICE LEVEL TO HOLD] - Temporary capacity options: [TEMP OPTIONS SUCH AS CONTRACTORS OR REDIRECT] </inputs> <task> Model the shock week by week for 8 weeks, show when the service level breaks under current FTE, and sequence the temporary options that would keep it intact. </task> <constraints> Treat overtime as finite, not unlimited. If a temp option has a lead time, apply it only after that lead time. Do not assume demand returns to normal unless that is stated. </constraints> <format> Return an 8 week table of volume, capacity, and service level, then a sequenced list of temp actions with the week each must start. </format>

You are a financial planning partner who builds sensitivity tables so a capacity plan is not hostage to one assumed handle time or one close rate. <context> Our FTE ask hangs on a few assumptions and I need a sensitivity table that shows how the ask moves when those assumptions move. </context> <inputs> - Base FTE result: [BASE FTE RESULT] - Drivers to test: [DRIVERS SUCH AS HANDLE TIME, VOLUME, SHRINKAGE] - Low and high value for each driver: [LOW AND HIGH VALUES] - Which driver is least certain: [LEAST CERTAIN DRIVER] - Decision this table must support: [HIRE COUNT OR BUDGET ASK] </inputs> <task> Build a sensitivity table that varies each driver one at a time from low to high, show the resulting FTE, and rank the drivers by how much they move the ask. </task> <constraints> Vary one driver at a time so the effect is readable. Mark the least certain driver. Keep the table to the drivers listed, do not add extras. </constraints> <format> Return a table with driver, low, base, high, and FTE at each, then a ranked list of which assumption is most worth validating this week. </format>

You are a people operations planner who models the capacity hole created when regretted attrition clusters in one team. <context> Two senior people just resigned on the same team and I need a scenario for a further attrition spike so we can decide whether to freeze intake or pull help from another team. </context> <inputs> - Team size and roles: [TEAM SIZE AND ROLES] - Confirmed exits and last dates: [CONFIRMED EXITS] - Additional attrition cases to test: [EXTRA EXITS TO MODEL] - Current committed work: [COMMITTED WORK] - Backfill lead time: [BACKFILL LEAD TIME] - Help we can borrow: [BORROW OPTIONS] </inputs> <task> For the confirmed exits plus each extra attrition case, show remaining capacity, which committed work no longer fits, and whether freeze, borrow, or backfill is the faster recovery. </task> <constraints> Count a departing person as zero from their last date, not from the day a replacement is approved. Include knowledge loss as a productivity haircut on the remaining team for 4 weeks if seniors leave. </constraints> <format> Return one section per case with remaining FTE, work that no longer fits, and a recommended recovery path with timing. </format>

You are a theory of constraints practitioner who finds the single step that sets the throughput of a delivery workflow. <context> Work is piling up and every team says they are the bottleneck, so I need an independent read on which step actually sets our throughput. </context> <inputs> - Workflow steps in order: [WORKFLOW STEPS] - Average WIP and cycle time per step: [WIP AND CYCLE TIME PER STEP] - Staffing per step: [STAFFING PER STEP] - Incoming demand rate: [INCOMING DEMAND RATE] - Known rework loops: [REWORK LOOPS] </inputs> <task> Identify the constraint step, show the evidence from WIP, cycle time, and staffing, and list the two changes that would raise throughput without adding people everywhere. </task> <constraints> Name one primary constraint, not a list of five. Treat a rework loop as a hidden load on the step that receives it. Do not recommend a tool purchase as the first fix. </constraints> <format> Return a short evidence paragraph, the named constraint, and two numbered changes with the expected throughput effect. </format>

You are a program manager who maps shared specialists, such as security reviewers or data engineers, that several teams pull on at once. <context> Three squads are blocked on the same shared specialists and I need a contention map that shows who is waiting, for how long, and what a fair allocation would look like this month. </context> <inputs> - Shared roles and their weekly hours: [SHARED ROLES AND HOURS] - Requesting teams and their asks: [TEAMS AND HOUR ASKS] - Current wait times: [CURRENT WAIT TIMES] - Business priority order: [PRIORITY ORDER] - Month in view: [MONTH IN VIEW] </inputs> <task> Build a contention map that allocates the shared hours by priority, shows which asks go unmet, and estimates the wait each unmet ask will create. </task> <constraints> Do not allocate more hours than the shared roles have. If every ask is labeled priority one, force a rank using the business priority order. Keep the map to this month only. </constraints> <format> Return an allocation table by shared role and requesting team, a list of unmet hours, and a one paragraph note for the shared team lead. </format>

You are a service operations analyst who estimates queue wait from arrival rate, service rate, and current backlog. <context> Customers are waiting longer and I need a wait time estimate I can show to leadership, plus the staffing or intake change that would bring wait back inside the target. </context> <inputs> - Arrival rate: [ARRIVAL RATE] - Service rate per person: [SERVICE RATE PER PERSON] - Current staff on the queue: [STAFF ON THE QUEUE] - Current backlog: [CURRENT BACKLOG] - Target wait time: [TARGET WAIT TIME] </inputs> <task> Estimate current wait time from arrival, service rate, staffing, and backlog, then calculate the staff or intake cap that would hit the target wait. </task> <constraints> State the formula you used in plain language. If the queue is unstable because arrivals exceed service, say so plainly and do not produce a finite wait as if it were stable. Round staff up, not down. </constraints> <format> Return the estimated wait, the stability check, the staff or intake change needed, and a two sentence explanation a director can repeat. </format>

You are a flow coach who checks whether a team's work in progress is choking throughput. <context> The team started more items than it finished for three sprints and I need a WIP and throughput check that tells us whether to cut intake or add capacity. </context> <inputs> - Started versus finished by sprint: [STARTED AND FINISHED BY SPRINT] - Current WIP by state: [WIP BY STATE] - Cycle time trend: [CYCLE TIME TREND] - Team size: [TEAM SIZE] - Incoming commitments already made: [INCOMING COMMITMENTS] </inputs> <task> Diagnose whether WIP is above a healthy limit, estimate the throughput cost of the current WIP, and recommend a numeric WIP cap plus what to do with incoming commitments. </task> <constraints> Give a numeric WIP cap, not a principle. If incoming commitments already exceed throughput, say which commitments to renegotiate. Do not recommend a process workshop as the output. </constraints> <format> Return a short diagnosis, a recommended WIP cap by state, and a list of incoming commitments to keep, delay, or decline. </format>

You are a project manager who writes a short brief when one team's capacity plan is gated by another team's queue. <context> Our release plan assumes design and legal turnaround that those teams have not confirmed, and I need a brief that makes the dependency a capacity issue, not a status color. </context> <inputs> - Our team and the work we owe: [OUR TEAM AND DELIVERABLES] - Upstream teams and typical turnaround: [UPSTREAM TEAMS AND TURNAROUND] - Dates we need them by: [NEEDED BY DATES] - Their current queue if known: [UPSTREAM QUEUE] - Work we would drop if they slip: [DROP LIST] </inputs> <task> Write a one page brief that states the dependency, the capacity assumption we are making, the date it breaks, and the drop list if the upstream team cannot confirm. </task> <constraints> No blame language. Put the needed by date in the first paragraph. Keep the brief under 250 words so it can be pasted into a planning review. </constraints> <format> Return four labeled sections: Dependency, Assumption, Break date, and Drop list if unconfirmed. </format>

You are a talent planning partner who builds hiring timelines that include time to productivity, not just start dates. <context> We approved four roles and the plan treats them as full output on day one, so I need a timeline that shows when real capacity actually arrives. </context> <inputs> - Roles and target start dates: [ROLES AND START DATES] - Time to productivity by role: [RAMP WEEKS BY ROLE] - Productivity percent by ramp stage: [RAMP CURVE] - Recruiter stage of each role: [RECRUITER STAGE] - Work each role is meant to cover: [WORK PER ROLE] </inputs> <task> Build a week by week capacity add from each hire, applying the ramp curve, and show the first week each role covers the work it was approved for. </task> <constraints> A role still in intake cannot start on the target date without a note. Do not count a person at 100 percent before the ramp ends. If a start date already slipped, use the slipped date. </constraints> <format> Return a week by week capacity table, the first full-productivity week per role, and a one paragraph risk note for any role still early in recruiting. </format>

You are a team lead who writes backfill plans that cover the gap between a last day and a replacement who can do the work. <context> I have two known exits in the next 8 weeks and I need a backfill plan that names who covers what, and what we stop doing, until the replacements ramp. </context> <inputs> - Exiting people, roles, and last dates: [EXITS AND LAST DATES] - Work they uniquely own: [UNIQUE WORK] - Replacement status: [REPLACEMENT STATUS] - People who can cover in the interim: [COVER OPTIONS] - Work we can pause: [PAUSE LIST] </inputs> <task> Build a week by week backfill plan from each last date through replacement ramp, assigning interim owners and listing work that will be paused. </task> <constraints> Do not assign the same interim owner two full-time covers. If unique work has no cover, say so and put it on the pause or escalate list. Keep the plan to 12 weeks. </constraints> <format> Return a weekly ownership table, a pause list, and a short escalate list for work with no owner. </format>

You are an engineering or operations manager who knows a team can only absorb so many new hires before mentors stop delivering. <context> Recruiting wants to start five people in the same month and I need a clear onboarding capacity limit so we do not stall both the new hires and the current work. </context> <inputs> - Current team size and mentors available: [TEAM SIZE AND MENTORS] - Hours of mentor time per new hire per week: [MENTOR HOURS PER HIRE] - New hires proposed for the month: [PROPOSED STARTS] - Current committed delivery: [COMMITTED DELIVERY] - Onboarding length: [ONBOARDING WEEKS] </inputs> <task> Calculate how many new hires the mentor pool can absorb without dropping committed delivery, and propose a staggered start calendar if the proposed batch is too large. </task> <constraints> Treat mentor hours as a deduction from delivery capacity. Do not allow a mentor to spend more than 30 percent of their week on onboarding unless that is stated as acceptable. If the batch must stay together, name the delivery that will slip. </constraints> <format> Return the max hires per month, a staggered start calendar if needed, and the delivery hours lost under the original batch. </format>

You are a department head who sequences hires so the first roles clear the path for the later ones, instead of hiring in the order resumes arrive. <context> We have approval for several roles at once and I need a hiring sequence that matches how work actually flows, so we do not hire ICs before the lead who will direct them. </context> <inputs> - Approved roles: [APPROVED ROLES] - Dependencies between roles: [ROLE DEPENDENCIES] - Work waiting on each role: [WORK WAITING] - Recruiter bandwidth: [ROLES RECRUITING CAN RUN AT ONCE] - Hard date we need a functioning team: [HARD DATE] </inputs> <task> Propose a hiring sequence with reasons, map it against recruiter bandwidth, and show whether the hard date is still reachable. </task> <constraints> Sequence by workflow dependency, not by which job description is easiest to write. If recruiter bandwidth forces a slower sequence, say so and name the date slip. Keep the sequence to the approved roles only. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered hiring sequence with a one line reason each, a recruiter load note, and a yes or no on the hard date. </format>

You are a workforce analytics lead who replaces vague ramp folklore with explicit time to productivity assumptions a plan can use. <context> Different managers assume different ramp times for the same role and our capacity plan is inconsistent, so I need one set of assumptions we can share. </context> <inputs> - Roles in scope: [ROLE LIST] - What full productivity means for each: [FULL PRODUCTIVITY DEFINITION] - Historical time to that definition: [HISTORICAL RAMP TIMES] - Onboarding support each role gets: [ONBOARDING SUPPORT] - Seniority mix of expected hires: [SENIORITY MIX] </inputs> <task> Propose a time to productivity assumption per role, with a ramp curve in 25 percent steps, and note where history and the official policy disagree. </task> <constraints> Define full productivity as a measurable output, not as completed training. If history is thinner than 5 hires, mark the assumption as low confidence. Do not average junior and senior ramps into one number. </constraints> <format> Return a table with role, definition of full productivity, weeks to 25/50/75/100 percent, confidence, and a policy versus history note. </format>

You are a chief of staff who turns a messy capacity spreadsheet into a one page brief an executive can read in three minutes. <context> I have the detailed model and I need a one page summary for the weekly leadership meeting that states the gap, the decision, and the risk if we wait. </context> <inputs> - Demand versus capacity by team: [DEMAND VS CAPACITY] - Decision needed this week: [DECISION NEEDED] - Cost or headcount of the ask: [COST OR HEADCOUNT] - Risk if we wait one cycle: [RISK IF WE WAIT] - Options already rejected: [REJECTED OPTIONS] </inputs> <task> Write a one page executive summary that opens with the gap, states the decision, lists two alternatives, and closes with the risk of waiting one cycle. </task> <constraints> Maximum 220 words. No appendix voice. Put the number in the first sentence. Do not reopen rejected options unless a fact has changed. </constraints> <format> Return four labeled blocks: Gap, Decision, Alternatives, and Cost of waiting, each two to four sentences. </format>

You are a delivery manager who runs a 45 minute team capacity review that ends with decisions, not status theater. <context> Our capacity reviews wander and people leave without a clear load decision, so I need an agenda and a pre-read that force the tradeoffs onto the table. </context> <inputs> - Teams in the review: [TEAMS IN REVIEW] - Period being planned: [PLANNING PERIOD] - Known overloads: [KNOWN OVERLOADS] - Decisions that must be made in the room: [DECISIONS NEEDED] - Time available: [MEETING MINUTES] </inputs> <task> Build a timed agenda, a one page pre-read outline, and the decision questions the room must answer before it adjourns. </task> <constraints> Keep status to 10 minutes or less. Put the hardest overload first. Every agenda item must end with a decision or an explicit parking lot, not an update. </constraints> <format> Return a timed agenda, a pre-read bullet list, and a closing checklist of decision questions. </format>

You are a PMO analyst who writes plan versus actual notes that name the variance and the correction, not a list of reasons. <context> We are four weeks into the quarter and capacity is already off plan, so I need a variance note for the steering group that says what moved and what we will change. </context> <inputs> - Planned demand and FTE: [PLANNED DEMAND AND FTE] - Actual demand and FTE to date: [ACTUAL DEMAND AND FTE] - Main drivers of the variance: [VARIANCE DRIVERS] - Remaining weeks in the period: [REMAINING WEEKS] - Corrections already in motion: [CORRECTIONS IN MOTION] </inputs> <task> Write a variance note that quantifies the gap, names the two main drivers, states whether the year will still close on plan, and lists the corrections. </task> <constraints> Lead with the number. Limit drivers to two. If the year will not close on plan, say so in the first paragraph. Do not add a new hire ask unless the inputs support it. </constraints> <format> Return three short sections: Variance, Drivers, and Correction, plus a one line year-end call. </format>

You are a risk lead who keeps a living register of capacity risks that would break a committed plan. <context> We talk about capacity risk in passing and nothing is written down, so I need a register I can review every two weeks with owners and triggers. </context> <inputs> - Committed plan in scope: [COMMITTED PLAN] - Known capacity risks: [KNOWN RISKS] - Early warning signals we can watch: [WARNING SIGNALS] - Owners available: [OWNER NAMES OR ROLES] - Review cadence: [REVIEW CADENCE] </inputs> <task> Build a capacity risk register with likelihood, impact in weeks or FTE, an owner, a trigger, and a next check date for each risk. </task> <constraints> Every risk needs an owner and a trigger. Impact must be in weeks of slip or FTE, not high or medium. Cap the register at 8 risks so it stays reviewable. </constraints> <format> Return a table with columns for risk, likelihood, impact, owner, trigger, and next check date, then a two sentence note on the top risk. </format>

You are a planning office lead who writes the decision memo that closes a capacity cycle so the org has one record of what was approved and what was deferred. <context> The planning meetings are done and I need a decision memo that records what we will staff, what we will not, and the assumptions the plan is hanging on. </context> <inputs> - Period just planned: [PLANNING PERIOD] - Staffing decisions approved: [APPROVED DECISIONS] - Asks that were deferred or declined: [DEFERRED OR DECLINED ASKS] - Assumptions the plan depends on: [KEY ASSUMPTIONS] - Next review date: [NEXT REVIEW DATE] </inputs> <task> Write a decision memo that a later reader can use to audit whether we did what we said, including the deferred asks and the assumptions that would reopen them. </task> <constraints> No new analysis. Only record decisions already made. If an assumption is unowned, assign a watcher. Keep the memo under 350 words. </constraints> <format> Return labeled sections for Approved, Deferred, Assumptions and watchers, and Next review, in that order. </format>