Putting the Two Sides on One Page
The one-page layout that makes a capacity account readable, what goes above and below the line, and why both sides must appear in the same document.
The reconciliation page for one quarter, as published
One page, eleven lines, and the two numbers at the bottom are the only ones anybody needs. Both sides are visible, so a disagreement lands on a line rather than on the conclusion. This is one employer's own page, not a template anybody has to adopt.
A capacity account becomes usable at the moment both sides appear on one page. Until then it is two documents owned by two people, and the subtraction is an argument rather than a reading.
The reconciliation in “Putting the Two Sides on One Page” is strongest when assumptions and current work records can be examined separately. A team considering check the related feature details for task prioritization methods can add time and project context, with transparent settings, limited access and a clear correction route around consequential decisions.
The page is eleven or twelve lines, fits on a screen, and is the only artefact most of the organisation ever needs to see.
For an outside reference relevant to “Putting the Two Sides on One Page”, consult Google Cloud operational-excellence guidance. Compare the general guidance with the organisation’s own unit, period and decision rights.
The shape of the page
Top block: the supply descent, from contracted hours down to net capacity, one line per deduction with its source.
Bottom block: the claims, grouped by state, with a total for each. Then two lines: the difference against confirmed claims, and the difference including provisional and assumed.
What goes above the line and what goes below
Above: everything that reduces what exists — leave, holidays, sickness, training, standing shrinkage, contingency.
Below: everything that has been promised to somebody. The distinction is who the hours belong to, and it decides where a line goes. Support appears above when it is an unavoidable background load and below when it is a commitment to a named service.
The line that gets argued about
Support, every time. It is the one deduction that can legitimately sit on either side, and where it sits changes both totals without changing the difference.
Put it wherever your organisation can defend, say which, and keep it there. Moving it between cycles makes the series uncomparable, which is a worse problem than putting it in the arguable place.
Why both sides must be in one document
Because a reader who sees only the supply side reads it as a complaint about resourcing, and a reader who sees only the claims reads them as a portfolio.
Together they are an account, and the difference at the bottom is the only number that drives a decision. Splitting them is how organisations end up with two true documents and no conclusion.
Keeping it to one page
Group deductions rather than itemising them: six lines, not twenty. Group claims by claimant, not by task. The detail lives in the working document and the page carries the structure.
A two-page account is read by the planner and nobody else, which defeats the purpose of producing it.
The sources column
Every line carries where its number came from, in three or four words: "leave system, booked plus accrual", "measured fortnight, 2025", "steering minute, March".
That column is why the page survives scrutiny. Without it the account is an assertion; with it, each line can be checked independently by whoever doubts it.
What to put at the top
The header paragraph: unit, what it is net of, conversion factor, period. Four sentences above eleven lines.
Reading time for the whole page is about ninety seconds, which is the correct target for a document that has to be read by people who did not build it.
Showing change since last cycle
A narrow column with the previous cycle's figure beside each line. Most lines will not have moved; the two or three that did are the story of the quarter.
That column turns the page from a snapshot into a series, and it costs one copy-paste per cycle.
Who it goes to
Claimants, the line manager, whoever can cancel a claim, and the team. The same page to all of them, with no variant versions.
Tailored versions are how an account loses its authority: two people quoting different numbers from the same exercise is worse than the original state where nobody had numbers at all.
The eleven lines
- Contracted hours for the actual people.
- Leave.
- Public holidays.
- Sickness at the measured rate.
- Training and statutory time.
- Support and interrupts.
- Named contingency.
- Net capacity.
- Confirmed claims.
- Provisional and assumed claims.
- The difference, twice.
Eleven lines, one page, ninety seconds. Everything else is working paper.
What the page is not
Not a delivery plan, not a budget, and not a performance report about anybody named in it.
Saying so in a footer is worth the line in organisations where capacity documents have previously been used as any of the three, because a page that is suspected of being an appraisal input will stop receiving honest numbers within one cycle.
The page as the whole method
Everything else in this collection — units, descents, states, closure, reconciliation — exists to make eleven lines true. The method is the page; the rest is how each line gets its number.
An organisation that produces this page monthly, honestly, with sources, has done capacity planning, whatever else it does or does not do.