FLOW in Workforce Allocation

Workbench Context

Most organizations say they “manage workforce allocation.”

What they usually mean is:

• assigning work to whoever is available, and

• redistributing tasks when someone falls behind.

  
  

The problem isn’t effort.

The problem is misclassification of work.

When every task is treated as a simple assignment decision, organizations miss the moment when scale—not skill—becomes the constraint.

At that point, no amount of prioritization, coaching, or “working harder” fixes the problem.

Allocation fails not because people can’t do the work —but because leaders keep solving system problems with individual decisions.

FLOW exists to prevent that failure mode.

The Unit of Effort

Single Unit of Effort:

“Assign Buyer A to own Purchase Request #48217.”

One assignment decision. One PR. One owner.

Now classify that same assignment decision across contexts.

Applying FLOW (One Unit, Many Flows)

FLOW A — Local Assignment

PR is standard

• Any qualified buyer can take it

• Assignment affects only that buyer’s queue

• No cross-team coordination

FLOW A Takeaway:

This unit exhibits low complexity and low scale.

FLOW B — Cross-Queue Assignment

PR is still standard (rules are clear)

• But assignment must consider multiple queues (coverage, load leveling, fairness)

• One assignment creates coordination effects (handoff rules, queue integrity, coverage)

• Still not judgment-heavy — just broader scope

FLOW B Takeaway:

Scale comes from “multiple queues / teams touched, rather than volume of PRs.

FLOW C — Judgment Assignment

PR requires specialization or risk tradeoffs (vendor risk, mission priority, stakeholder impact)

• The “best owner” is not obvious

• Wrong assignment creates secondary problems (rework, escalation, delays)

FLOW C Takeaway:

High complexity, limited/moderate scale

FLOW D — System Level Assignment

This is still the same unit of effort: Assign an owner to Purchase Request #48217.

What changes is the scale of this single PR.

This PR:

• directly affects multiple programs, contracts, or missions

• requires coordination across organizational layers

• carries enterprise-level operational, financial, or mission impact

• creates downstream effects regardless of who is assigned

  
  

Even in isolation, this PR cannot be treated as a local assignment decision. The act of assigning it requires system-level consideration.

FLOW D Takeaway:

This unit exhibits large scale by itself, independent of workload volume or staffing conditions.

FLOW S — Exception Assignment

Legal, safety, security, union rules, conflict-of-interest, or investigation constraints

• Normal allocation rules are overridden

FLOW S Takeaway:

Exception governance.

What This Changes

Without FLOW:

• High performers get overloaded

• Managers intervene too early

• “Busy” is confused with “important”

• Burnout looks like a performance problem

  
  

With FLOW:

• FLOW A/B work is absorbed quietly

• FLOW C work gets protected attention

• FLOW D triggers redesign, not heroics

• Leaders engage only when scale demands it

  
  

Workbench Takeaway

Workforce allocation does not fail because people are lazy or unskilled.

It fails because organizations:

• confuse difficulty with scale,

• confuse urgency with importance,

• and assign work based on availability instead of FLOW.

  
  

FLOW fixes that by enforcing one discipline:

“One unit of effort. Classified by scale and complexity. Allocated structurally—not emotionally.”

That habit turns workforce allocation from a constant fire drill into a design problem that can actually be solved.