8 min read • Guide 582 of 877
Resource Allocation Best Practices
Resource allocation is the art of matching team capacity to project demands—putting the right people on the right work at the right time. GitScrum's multi-project dashboards and capacity planning features help managers see team workload across initiatives, preventing overallocation and ensuring critical projects have the resources they need to succeed.
Allocation Approaches
| Approach | Best For | Drawbacks |
|---|---|---|
| Dedicated teams | Large projects, focus | Less flexibility |
| Shared resources | Small projects, skills | Context switching |
| Capacity-based | Predictable work | Ignores skill matching |
| Skill-based | Specialized work | May create bottlenecks |
Capacity Planning
CAPACITY PLANNING FRAMEWORK
CAPACITY CALCULATION:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Total Available Capacity: │
│ │
│ Team size: 8 developers │
│ Sprint length: 2 weeks │
│ Days per sprint: 10 days per person │
│ Total days: 80 person-days │
│ │
│ Capacity Adjustments: │
│ ├── PTO/Holidays: -8 days (10%) │
│ ├── Meetings: -8 days (10%) │
│ ├── Support/bugs: -8 days (10%) │
│ └── Buffer: -8 days (10%) │
│ │
│ Available for planned work: 48 days (60%) │
│ At ~1 story point per day: ~48 points/sprint │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
CAPACITY TRACKING:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Q2 2025 Capacity Overview: │
│ │
│ Sprint Capacity Planned Actual Notes │
│ ────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ S1 48 pts 46 pts 44 pts Good │
│ S2 40 pts 42 pts 38 pts 2 PTO │
│ S3 48 pts 50 pts 45 pts Over │
│ S4 44 pts 44 pts (current) │
│ │
│ Average velocity: 42 points/sprint │
│ Plan at: 42 points (realistic) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Work Type Allocation
ALLOCATION BY WORK TYPE
RECOMMENDED SPLIT:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Work Type Allocation Purpose │
│ ────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ Features 60-70% New value │
│ Tech Debt 15-20% Sustainability │
│ Bugs/Support 10-15% Quality │
│ Innovation 5-10% Future value │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
BY PRODUCT MATURITY:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ New Product (0-2 years): │
│ ├── Features: 80% │
│ ├── Tech Debt: 10% │
│ ├── Bugs: 5% │
│ └── Innovation: 5% │
│ │
│ Growing Product (2-5 years): │
│ ├── Features: 65% │
│ ├── Tech Debt: 20% │
│ ├── Bugs: 10% │
│ └── Innovation: 5% │
│ │
│ Mature Product (5+ years): │
│ ├── Features: 50% │
│ ├── Tech Debt: 25% │
│ ├── Bugs: 15% │
│ └── Innovation: 10% │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Skill-Based Allocation
SKILL MATRIX AND ALLOCATION
TEAM SKILL MATRIX:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Person Frontend Backend DevOps Mobile │
│ ────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ Alex ● ◐ ○ ○ │
│ Jordan ◐ ● ◐ ○ │
│ Sam ● ● ○ ○ │
│ Taylor ○ ◐ ● ○ │
│ Chris ○ ○ ○ ● │
│ │
│ ● Expert ◐ Proficient ○ Learning │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
ALLOCATION BY SKILL NEED:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Project A (Dashboard Redesign): │
│ ├── Need: 2 Frontend, 1 Backend │
│ ├── Allocate: Alex (FE), Sam (FE+BE) │
│ └── Duration: 6 sprints │
│ │
│ Project B (API Migration): │
│ ├── Need: 2 Backend, 1 DevOps │
│ ├── Allocate: Jordan (BE), Taylor (DevOps) │
│ └── Duration: 4 sprints │
│ │
│ Project C (Mobile App): │
│ ├── Need: 1 Mobile, 1 Backend │
│ ├── Allocate: Chris (Mobile) │
│ ├── Gap: Need Backend support from Project B │
│ └── Duration: 8 sprints │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
ADDRESSING SKILL GAPS:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Options when skills don't match: │
│ │
│ 1. Cross-training │
│ └── Pair junior with expert │
│ │
│ 2. Temporary reallocation │
│ └── Borrow from another team │
│ │
│ 3. External help │
│ └── Contractor or consultant │
│ │
│ 4. Scope adjustment │
│ └── Reduce scope to match skills │
│ │
│ 5. Timeline adjustment │
│ └── Extend to allow learning │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Multi-Project Allocation
CROSS-PROJECT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
ALLOCATION VISUALIZATION:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Q2 2025 Resource Allocation │
│ │
│ Person Project A Project B Support │
│ ────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ Alex 100% - - │
│ Jordan - 80% 20% │
│ Sam 60% 40% - │
│ Taylor - 100% - │
│ Chris - - 50% Mobile │
│ │
│ ⚠ Risk: Sam split across projects │
│ Action: Monitor for context switching issues │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
ALLOCATION ANTI-PATTERNS:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✗ Everyone at 20% on 5 projects │
│ Impact: No progress on anything │
│ │
│ ✗ One person is single point of failure │
│ Impact: Project blocks if they're out │
│ │
│ ✗ No buffer for urgent work │
│ Impact: Everything slips for emergencies │
│ │
│ ✗ Allocating future capacity too early │
│ Impact: No flexibility for changes │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
OPTIMAL ALLOCATION PATTERNS:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✓ Dedicated team pods (3-5 people per project) │
│ ✓ Maximum 2 projects per person │
│ ✓ At least 2 people with each critical skill │
│ ✓ 10-15% unallocated for flexibility │
│ ✓ Quarterly rebalancing │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Handling Resource Conflicts
RESOURCE CONFLICT RESOLUTION
CONFLICT SCENARIO:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Situation: │
│ ├── Project A needs Jordan full-time │
│ ├── Project B needs Jordan full-time │
│ ├── Jordan is only backend expert available │
│ └── Both projects are "high priority" │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Step 1: Gather data │
│ ├── Revenue impact of each project │
│ ├── Contractual deadlines │
│ ├── Strategic importance │
│ └── Consequence of delay for each │
│ │
│ Step 2: Present options │
│ ├── Option A: Jordan on Project A │
│ │ Impact: Project B delayed 4 weeks │
│ │ │
│ ├── Option B: Jordan on Project B │
│ │ Impact: Project A delayed 6 weeks │
│ │ │
│ ├── Option C: Split Jordan 50/50 │
│ │ Impact: Both delayed 3 weeks, quality risk │
│ │ │
│ └── Option D: Contractor for one project │
│ Impact: $30K cost, no delay │
│ │
│ Step 3: Escalate to decision maker │
│ └── Present options with data, get decision │
│ │
│ Step 4: Document and communicate │
│ └── Record decision and rationale │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Resource Forecasting
FORWARD-LOOKING RESOURCE PLANNING
QUARTERLY PLANNING VIEW:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Q3 2025 Resource Outlook: │
│ │
│ Available capacity: 8 developers │
│ Expected velocity: 168 points/quarter │
│ │
│ Committed Work: │
│ ├── Project A (continuation): 80 pts │
│ ├── Project C (new): 60 pts │
│ ├── Maintenance buffer: 20 pts │
│ └── Total committed: 160 pts │
│ │
│ Remaining capacity: 8 pts (5%) │
│ Status: ⚠️ Nearly at capacity │
│ Recommendation: Defer new commitments │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
HEADCOUNT PLANNING:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Current: 8 developers │
│ Attrition estimate: 1 per year (12%) │
│ Growth needs: +2 for new projects │
│ │
│ Hiring plan: │
│ ├── Q2: 1 Backend (replacement) │
│ ├── Q3: 1 Frontend (growth) │
│ └── Q4: 1 DevOps (growth) │
│ │
│ Ramp-up time: 3 months to full productivity │
│ Budget impact: $450K annual │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Best Practices
- Plan at 70-80% capacity — leave buffer
- Minimize context switching — limit projects per person
- Build redundancy — no single points of failure
- Use historical data for realistic planning
- Rebalance quarterly as priorities shift
- Document allocation decisions for transparency
- Address skill gaps proactively
- Escalate conflicts early with data
Anti-Patterns
✗ Over-allocating at 100%+ capacity
✗ Spreading everyone thin across many projects
✗ Ignoring skill matching
✗ No buffer for unexpected work
✗ Allocating without consulting team
✗ No visibility into cross-project allocation