The Difference Nobody Computes
The one operation that turns two documents into a plan, why it is almost never performed, and the three numbers it produces.
One quarter, with the subtraction finally performed
The plan was comfortable on confirmed claims and short by a quarter of a person once the provisional one was included. Both figures are true; the organisation had only ever seen the first. This is one employer's own quarter, not a benchmark.
Having built a supply figure and a book of claims, the remaining work is one subtraction. It takes a minute. It is almost never performed, because the two documents live with different people and nobody owns the arithmetic between them.
The reconciliation in “The Difference Nobody Computes” is strongest when assumptions and current work records can be examined separately. A team considering follow the supporting resource here for download time tracking software can add time and project context, with transparent settings, limited access and a clear correction route around consequential decisions.
That is the whole of the problem this collection describes. Everything else is preparation for one line.
For an outside reference relevant to “The Difference Nobody Computes”, consult TechnologyAdvice HR resources. Compare the general guidance with the organisation’s own unit, period and decision rights.
The three subtractions
Capacity less confirmed claims gives the committed position. Less provisional as well gives the likely position. Less assumed as well gives the possible position.
Three numbers rather than one, because a single figure hides which claims it believed, and because the three frequently have different signs.
Why the sign matters more than the size
A positive difference of fifty hours and a negative one of fifty hours are not symmetric. Positive means some capacity is uncommitted, which is a choice about what to do next. Negative means something will not happen, and the only question is what.
Organisations treat small negatives as noise and absorb them. Absorption is the mechanism by which chronic overcommitment becomes normal.
What absorption looks like
Overtime, quietly. Deprioritised standing work that comes back as a problem later. Corners cut on the least visible claim. And a team that is always slightly behind, which is read as a performance issue.
None of those is a decision anybody took, and all of them are the consequence of a subtraction that was not published.
Performing it honestly
The subtraction must use the same unit and the same period on both sides, and it must not adjust either side to make the answer palatable.
The commonest corruption is a shrinkage figure that gets revised upward after the subtraction comes out negative. At that point the account has become advocacy.
Publishing the three numbers
One line each, with the date and the sources, to whoever can act on them. Not as a slide in a deck about something else, and not as an appendix.
The format matters less than the frequency: a monthly line that is always there is read; an occasional detailed report is not.
The first time it is negative
Expect disbelief, then an argument about the supply figure, then an argument about whether the assumed claims are real. Both arguments are useful and both are finite.
What should not happen is the number being withdrawn. A difference published once and then not mentioned again teaches everybody that it was a complaint rather than an account.
The difference as a recurring figure
Its value is in the series rather than the point. A difference that is negative every quarter for a year is a structural statement about the organisation's commitments, and it cannot be dismissed as a bad quarter.
Keeping the series is a single row in a spreadsheet and it is the strongest evidence any resourcing conversation can have.
Who sees it
Everybody whose claim is in the book, and whoever can cancel one. The team should see it too: people absorbing an overcommitment are entitled to know it is arithmetic rather than their own slowness.
There is no version of this where hiding the number helps, and several where it does real damage.
What to do with a positive difference
Decide, rather than let it fill. Uncommitted capacity is an asset and it will be consumed by whatever arrives first if nobody allocates it deliberately.
A plan with a visible positive difference and a decision about it is rare and is what good capacity management actually looks like.
The four ways the subtraction gets avoided
- The two sides are never expressed in the same unit, so it cannot be done.
- The book is incomplete, so the answer would be wrong anyway.
- Nobody owns the arithmetic, so nobody runs it.
- Somebody ran it, the answer was negative, and it was not published.
The fourth is the only one that is a decision. The other three are conditions, and each of them is removed by one afternoon of work described earlier in this collection.
Rounding the answer
Give the difference in whole days or whole people, not in hours. A difference of −247 hours is a quarter of a person for a quarter, and that is the form in which it will be understood and acted on.
Hours belong in the working document; the published difference belongs in the unit the reader allocates in, which is almost always people.
The line worth putting in every plan
"Net capacity 2,061 hours. Confirmed claims 1,840. Difference +221 on confirmed, −247 once the provisional claim is included. Sources and descent attached."
Four sentences. They are the output of this entire collection, and an organisation that publishes them monthly has already solved most of what the rest of it describes.