Capability template for project and delivery
Project intake and capacity review
When a new initiative is proposed, the portfolio owner sees it scored on the business's own criteria beside the projects already committed, the delivery days it would use month by month, and what it would crowd out or push later. The owner accepts, defers or rejects it.
Listed under
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
A proposal stops being a matter of who argued best in the meeting. The portfolio owner gets a short review that places the new initiative in the same ranking as everything already committed, using the criteria the business has already agreed on, with the evidence behind every score quoted from the proposal itself.
Beside the ranking sits the cost in delivery days. For each role and each month, the page shows the load with and without the proposal, how much room is left under the ceiling the business set, and, where the proposal pushes a role over it, which committed projects use that role that month, lowest score first, with fixed work kept apart because it cannot move. It also tests later start months, so the owner can see whether waiting would make the proposal fit.
The portfolio owner reads it and decides: accept, defer or reject. The page lays out the facts for each choice and recommends none of them. The AI assistant changes no plan, tells no one and schedules nothing.
Who starts the work, and when
The portfolio owner or the operations lead runs it when a proposal arrives and before anyone commits to it, usually at the monthly portfolio review or whenever a leader asks for a new project to be taken on. The portfolio owner reads the result the same week.
What they supply
- The proposal as written, and the date it should start.
- The list of committed projects, with their dates, whether each is fixed, and their scores on the business's criteria.
- The delivery days each committed project uses, by role and month.
- The days each role has available each month, after leave and ongoing run work.
- The business's criteria, their weights, what each score from 1 to 5 means, and the ceiling for load.
- The delivery days the proposal would need, by role and month, and who estimated them.
What comes out
A short review, up to two pages, in a fixed order: the proposal in brief, its score ranked among the committed projects with the evidence for each score, the monthly load by role, the over-ceiling months with the committed work that would have to give way, the start months tested, the gaps and questions, and the decision laid out for the portfolio owner. Any section with nothing to report says so. If the capacity or the project export does not match the expected headings, nothing is calculated until someone says which column is which.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. The business, its people, its projects, the proposal and every figure below are invented. The business is an invented 40-person web and brand agency. The operations lead runs the review for the managing director, who owns the portfolio and decides. People are named by role only. First come the five inputs the operations lead supplied, in full, then the review the capability returned.
The inputs
1. Settings
Portfolio owner: Managing director
Review date: Tuesday 10 November 2026
Months: 2027-01 to 2027-04
Load ceiling: 85%
Scale: 1 to 5 on every criterion
Criteria and weights (total 100):
Value (40): 1 no benefit stated; 2 benefit named but not sized; 3 sized by
the proposer's estimate only; 4 sized from the agency's own records;
5 sized from records and worth over $50,000 a year
Strategic fit (30): 1 none of this year's goals; 2 touches a goal in
passing; 3 supports one goal indirectly; 4 supports one goal directly;
5 supports two goals directly
Urgency (20): 1 no date; 2 a wished-for date, no consequence of missing it
stated; 3 a date with a stated cost of missing it; 4 as 3, and the date
is within three months of the start; 5 an external fixed date
Confidence (10): 1 no estimate of effort; 3 effort estimated by the
proposer; 5 effort estimated by the roles that would do it
This year's goals: G1 keep and grow retained clients; G2 cut delivery
overhead; G3 launch two new service lines.
2. Committed projects (exported from the portfolio sheet)
ID,Project,Start,End,Fixed,Value,Strategic fit,Urgency,Confidence
P1,Client portal rebuild,2027-01,2027-04,No,4,5,3,4
P2,Annual brand refresh,2027-01,2027-04,No,3,3,2,5
P3,Billing system migration,2027-01,2027-04,Yes,3,4,5,4
P4,Careers site update,2027-02,2027-03,No,2,2,2,4
3. Delivery days used by committed projects
ID,Role,2027-01,2027-02,2027-03,2027-04
P1,Designer,10,10,8,0
P1,Developer,30,30,25,15
P1,Project manager,6,6,5,3
P2,Designer,15,20,20,5
P2,Developer,0,5,5,0
P2,Project manager,4,4,4,2
P3,Developer,20,20,20,20
P3,Project manager,6,6,6,6
P4,Designer,0,8,8,0
P4,Developer,0,10,5,0
P4,Project manager,0,2,2,0
4. Days available by role (after leave and run work)
Role,2027-01,2027-02,2027-03,2027-04
Designer,60,60,60,60
Developer,80,80,70,80
Project manager,40,40,40,40
5. The proposal
Proposal: Customer self-service booking tool
Proposed by: Client services lead
Wanted start: 2027-01, three months
What it is: A page where retained clients book their monthly review
meetings and check delivery dates themselves.
Why: In October the client services lead counted 46 email threads in the
shared booking inbox that existed only to arrange a review meeting, about
20 minutes each, handled by the project managers. Three retained clients have asked for a
booking page. The lead would like it live before the May booking
season; nothing is stated about what happens if it is late.
Effort (the client services lead's own estimate, not checked with the
delivering roles):
Role,Month 1,Month 2,Month 3
Designer,10,12,5
Developer,25,25,20
Project manager,5,5,4
The review the capability returned
Project intake and capacity review: Customer self-service booking tool
- For: Managing director, as portfolio owner. Review date 10 November 2026. Months 2027-01 to 2027-04. Ceiling 85%. Criteria as supplied; ceiling as supplied.
- The proposal in brief: Proposed by the client services lead. A page where retained clients book their monthly review meetings and check delivery dates. Wanted start 2027-01 for three months. Stated reason: 46 booking email threads in the shared booking inbox in October, about 20 minutes each, and three retained clients have asked. Effort figures are the proposer's own estimate.
- Score beside the committed projects: Proposed scores, for the managing director to confirm or change. Ranked by weighted score, out of 5.
- P1 Client portal rebuild: 4.10 (Value 4, Strategic fit 5, Urgency 3, Confidence 4).
- P3 Billing system migration: 3.80 (3, 4, 5, 4). Fixed.
- Proposal, Customer self-service booking tool: 3.50 (4, 4, 2, 3). Proposed. Third of five.
- P2 Annual brand refresh: 3.00 (3, 3, 2, 5).
- P4 Careers site update: 2.20 (2, 2, 2, 4). Evidence for the proposed scores:
- Value 4: "counted 46 email threads in the shared booking inbox that existed only to arrange a review meeting, about 20 minutes each" is a count taken from the agency's own records, and no yearly figure over $50,000 is stated.
- Strategic fit 4: "Three retained clients have asked for a booking page" and "A page where retained clients book their monthly review meetings" tie it directly to G1, keep and grow retained clients. The proposal claims no saving in delivery overhead, so G2 is not counted as directly supported; one goal directly is a 4.
- Urgency 2: "would like it live before the May booking season" is a wished-for date, and "nothing is stated about what happens if it is late."
- Confidence 3: "the client services lead's own estimate, not checked with the delivering roles."
- Monthly load by role: Days, with the share of available days. Committed, then with the proposal, against the ceiling in days.
- Designer, 2027-01: capacity 60.0; committed 25.0 (41.7%); with proposal 35.0 (58.3%); ceiling 51.0; 16.0 days of room.
- Designer, 2027-02: capacity 60.0; committed 38.0 (63.3%); with proposal 50.0 (83.3%); ceiling 51.0; 1.0 days of room.
- Designer, 2027-03: capacity 60.0; committed 36.0 (60.0%); with proposal 41.0 (68.3%); ceiling 51.0; 10.0 days of room.
- Designer, 2027-04: capacity 60.0; committed 5.0 (8.3%); with proposal 5.0 (8.3%); ceiling 51.0; 46.0 days of room.
- Developer, 2027-01: capacity 80.0; committed 50.0 (62.5%); with proposal 75.0 (93.8%); ceiling 68.0; over the ceiling by 7.0 days.
- Developer, 2027-02: capacity 80.0; committed 65.0 (81.3%); with proposal 90.0 (112.5%); ceiling 68.0; over the ceiling by 22.0 days.
- Developer, 2027-03: capacity 70.0; committed 55.0 (78.6%); with proposal 75.0 (107.1%); ceiling 59.5; over the ceiling by 15.5 days.
- Developer, 2027-04: capacity 80.0; committed 35.0 (43.8%); with proposal 35.0 (43.8%); ceiling 68.0; 33.0 days of room.
- Project manager, 2027-01: capacity 40.0; committed 16.0 (40.0%); with proposal 21.0 (52.5%); ceiling 34.0; 13.0 days of room.
- Project manager, 2027-02: capacity 40.0; committed 18.0 (45.0%); with proposal 23.0 (57.5%); ceiling 34.0; 11.0 days of room.
- Project manager, 2027-03: capacity 40.0; committed 17.0 (42.5%); with proposal 21.0 (52.5%); ceiling 34.0; 13.0 days of room.
- Project manager, 2027-04: capacity 40.0; committed 11.0 (27.5%); with proposal 11.0 (27.5%); ceiling 34.0; 23.0 days of room.
- Over the ceiling, and what would have to give way: Three role-months, all Developer. Running totals assume the whole month's days of a project are released; releasing part is the managing director's call.
- Developer, 2027-01: over by 7.0 days. Fixed work that cannot move: P3, 20.0 days. Committed work using this role, lowest score first: P1 Client portal rebuild, 4.10, 30.0 days (running total 30.0). The 7.0 days are covered only when P1 is included. P1 and P3 score higher than the proposal.
- Developer, 2027-02: over by 22.0 days. Fixed work that cannot move: P3, 20.0 days. Committed work, lowest score first: P4 Careers site update, 2.20, 10.0 days (10.0); P2 Annual brand refresh, 3.00, 5.0 days (15.0); P1 Client portal rebuild, 4.10, 30.0 days (45.0). The 22.0 days are covered only when P1 is included. P4 and P2 score lower than the proposal; P1 and P3 score higher.
- Developer, 2027-03: over by 15.5 days. Fixed work that cannot move: P3, 20.0 days. Committed work, lowest score first: P4 Careers site update, 2.20, 5.0 days (5.0); P2 Annual brand refresh, 3.00, 5.0 days (10.0); P1 Client portal rebuild, 4.10, 25.0 days (35.0). The 15.5 days are covered only when P1 is included. P4 and P2 score lower than the proposal; P1 and P3 score higher.
- Start months tested: Only starts whose three months all fall inside the supplied months can be tested.
- Start 2027-01 (months 2027-01 to 2027-03): over the ceiling in Developer in all three months, as above.
- Start 2027-02 (months 2027-02 to 2027-04): Developer over the ceiling in 2027-02 (by 22.0 days) and 2027-03 (by 20.5 days); 2027-04 fits, with 13.0 days of room. Designer and Project manager fit in all three months.
- Starts from 2027-03: not tested. Capacity for months after 2027-04 was not supplied.
- Developer room under the ceiling before the proposal, against what the proposal asks, for a 2027-01 start: 18.0 against 25.0 (2027-01), 3.0 against 25.0 (2027-02), 4.5 against 20.0 (2027-03).
- Gaps and questions:
- The effort figures are the proposer's estimate. Ask the Designer, Developer and Project manager roles to confirm or correct them.
- Is the May booking season a date with a cost if missed? If so, Urgency would rise from 2.
- Does the proposal claim a saving in delivery overhead (G2)? Nothing is stated; if the portfolio owner counts it as a direct saving, Strategic fit would be 5.
- Capacity for 2027-05 onward was not supplied, so a later start cannot be tested. Supply it if deferral is considered.
- Are the four proposed scores accepted as they stand?
- Decision for the Managing director: accept, defer or reject. Nothing here is a recommendation.
- Facts if accepted at a 2027-01 start: Developer is over the ceiling in three months, by 7.0, 22.0 and 15.5 days. The only way to cover the gap in 2027-02 and 2027-03 from committed work includes P1, which scores higher than the proposal. P3 is fixed.
- Facts if deferred: a 2027-02 start still leaves Developer over the ceiling in two months. A start from 2027-03 cannot be tested without capacity after April.
- Facts if rejected: the proposal ranks third of five at 3.50, above P2 and P4. Its Urgency is 2 and its effort is unconfirmed.
Every figure traces to the inputs supplied. The review changes no plan, schedules nothing and tells no one.
Where it fits
- Professional services, where the same few people serve client work and internal projects and each new idea takes days from both.
- Marketing and advertising, where design and build time is the scarce thing and every campaign or tool request competes for it.
- Software technology, where developer days are the limit and the roadmap has more asks than days.
- Engineering firms, where internal improvement projects draw on the same engineers as billable work.
- Project and delivery, which owns the committed list and the dates.
- Operations and process improvement, where improvement ideas arrive faster than anyone can staff them.
- Established businesses, where new initiatives land on a team that is already full.
- Growth and scaling, where the number of good ideas passes the number of available people.
What has to change for your company
Write your own criteria and weights, and say in a line what a 1, a 3 and a 5 mean on each, so two people would score the same proposal alike. Choose the load ceiling. Decide the roles you plan by and whether a month or a week is the period. Mark which committed work is fixed and who may say so. Settle who receives proposals, who may score them and who accepts, defers or rejects. Keep one source for the committed list and for available days; when the page and that source disagree, the source wins.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this capability template, drawing on one published open-source method credited in its sources. It was editorially reviewed on 10 November 2026. It was tried once on its invented example in Claude on 10 November 2026, and the record of that run is published with it. The run produced every part of the review and reached no stop condition; the acceptance tests in the template were not run. After an earlier run, the example was made to say where its count came from, the scoring of a goal and the treatment of a 0-day row were settled in the instructions, and the run on this version is the one recorded. It has not yet been tested in a client environment. It has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your environment means running it on two or three past proposals whose outcome you already know, with hard cases written in advance: a proposal with no stated benefit, a role already over its ceiling before the proposal, fixed work that makes the gap unsolvable, a capacity export with a renamed column. The portfolio owner checks every score and every day count before anyone relies on it. Project status report then reports on a project once it is running, and Headcount plan is the place to look when the answer to a capacity gap is more people.
The full capability template
Everything above is the outline. The complete capability template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this capability to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this capability template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: