Closing a Claim When the Work Ends
Why claims outlive the work they were made for, the three events that should close one, and the reconciliation that finds the ones nobody closed.
Claims outlive their work. A project finishes, a service is retired, an obligation ends, and the claim against capacity continues to sit in the book because nothing generates an event when work stops.
The commitments described in “Closing a Claim When the Work Ends” become easier to reconcile when planned work can be compared with a consistent record of project time. A team reviewing view the detailed implementation notes for apps for tracking work hours can add current operational evidence while keeping the claimant, approval state and decision owner explicit.
In a book assembled for the first time, between a tenth and a fifth of the claims by volume turn out to be for work that no longer exists.
For an outside reference relevant to “Closing a Claim When the Work Ends”, consult Eurofound working-conditions research. Compare the general guidance with the organisation’s own unit, period and decision rights.
Why closure does not happen on its own
Because finishing is diffuse. Projects end in a tail of small tasks, a closure report nobody writes and a handover that drifts; services are retired in stages; obligations lapse silently when a contract changes.
There is no moment at which somebody naturally says "and the capacity claim is now closed", so nobody does.
The three events that should close a claim
- The work the claim was for completes.
- The claim's end date passes.
- The claimant says it is no longer needed.
Three triggers, any of which is sufficient. The second is the only one that fires by itself, which is why end dates are mandatory in a book that is meant to stay honest.
The closure line
One line when a claim closes: the date, what actually got used against it, and the balance released.
Writing the actual usage at closure is what makes the next estimate better, and it is the only point at which anybody is in a position to know it.
Partial closure
Common and badly handled: a project finishes its main phase and keeps a small tail of support. The claim should be reduced to the tail's size, dated, and re-stated — not left at its original quantity and not closed.
Where a tail has no end date, it has become a standing commitment and should be moved into that category explicitly rather than lingering as a project claim.
The overrun that never closes
A claim whose work has overrun is still open and should be, but at a revised quantity with a revised date, re-confirmed by the claimant.
An overrunning claim that silently retains its original figure in the book makes the book understate the real commitment — which is the opposite of the usual failure and just as damaging.
The reconciliation that finds the uncollected
Once a cycle, take every claim in the book and ask one question: is the work it was made for still happening?
Ten minutes for a team's book. It is the single most productive ten minutes in capacity management, because every lapsed claim it finds is capacity recovered at no cost to anybody.
Where the lapsed claims hide
In spreadsheets copied forward from the previous cycle, in rotas for services that moved, in a standing allowance for a system that was replaced, and in the planner's own memory of what the team usually does.
The copy-forward is the worst offender: a plan built by editing last quarter's inherits every claim last quarter had, including the ones that should have gone.
Telling the claimant
Closure should be told, not assumed: "we have closed the claim for Project A as of March; if you need capacity beyond that, it needs a new line."
That sentence prevents the most awkward version of this, where work quietly continues against a closed claim and nobody discovers it until the next reconciliation.
The capacity released
Goes back to the pool and is reallocated by the same process as any other capacity — not quietly absorbed by whoever happened to be working on the closed claim.
Absorption is the normal outcome and it is how teams end up with capacity that is committed to nothing in particular. Making the release visible is what gives the organisation a choice about it.
Building the plan forward rather than sideways
The copy-forward problem has one fix: build each cycle's plan from the book rather than from the previous plan.
The book carries states and end dates; a plan does not. Copying the plan copies the conclusions and loses the evidence, which is why the same three dead claims reappear quarter after quarter in organisations that work that way.
What closure is worth
In most first reconciliations, closing the lapsed claims releases between five and fifteen per cent of a team's capacity.
That is larger than any productivity intervention available in the same timeframe, it costs nothing, and it requires no permission from anybody — which makes it the right place to start if the book is being assembled for the first time.
What to record at closure
Date closed, which of the three triggers fired, actual usage against the claim, and the balance released.
Four fields, written once. Over a year they produce the only honest record of how well the organisation estimates its own work, which is the subject of the last section of this collection.