Equipment, workstations, and the people to run them — sized against real demand, current, peak, and future, before anyone locks in a layout built around a guess.
Capacity planning starts with demand: how much has to move through each product, process, or service line, how often, and at what rate — gathered by routing and operating sequence, not assumed at the facility level. That demand gets converted into Required Load Hours for every resource it touches, and compared directly against what that resource can actually demonstrate or support, in the same units and the same period. The gap between the two — the Throughput Gap — is the number that actually drives an equipment or headcount decision, not a guess about whether "it feels tight in there."
The same demand gets run through more than one scenario, because the number that matters depends on what you're designing for: Expected, Peak, Future Growth, and the combined Future-Peak case. Whichever scenario the project is actually designing to — a documented choice, not automatically the largest — is the one that governs the required resource count. Redundancy or standby capacity gets added on top of that, explicitly, so it's never quietly double-counted against demand the governing scenario already covers.
Headcount is sized the same way, not guessed at separately: departments and headcount planned over time, against the same demand and growth assumptions, sizing parking, cafeteria, circulation, transportation, and office space alongside the production or service resources — one coherent set of numbers instead of two that quietly disagree.
You're not sure whether current or planned equipment, staffing, and headcount growth can actually support the volume you're planning for — especially before a block layout gets sized around a number nobody has actually checked.
Not a real client's numbers — a simplified illustration of the comparison every capacity plan runs. Required throughput (what the operation needs to move) against demonstrated or supportable throughput (what the resource can actually do), scenario by scenario.
A positive gap is a shortfall that has to be resolved with resource count, redundancy, or a documented exception — not absorbed silently into a layout sized for a different number.
Required load hours and resource counts calculated per routing and resource — not asserted at the facility level — so shared-resource load aggregates correctly instead of getting counted twice.
Expected, Peak, Future Growth, and Future-Peak run side by side, with the governing scenario documented as a decision — not defaulted to whichever number is largest.
A whole-number equipment, workstation, and headcount count by department, with redundancy and surge capacity stated explicitly on top of — never folded invisibly into — the governing requirement.
Most engagements start with a quick conversation about where you are in the process.
Get In Touch