Over and under allocation
Over-allocation plans more hours into a person's period than they have available. Under-allocation plans materially fewer. These two share one page because they are the same failure measured from opposite ends: a plan that does not match the hours a person actually holds.
People notice the over end, and they notice it late. The plan looked fine as four separate choices made by four people, each seeing only their own.
What follows is easy to predict. Something slips, or somebody quietly works longer to absorb it. The second is worse. The plan looks like it worked, so the same guess gets made again next month.
The under end is quieter and rarely reported. Nobody puts a hand up to say they have spare time, least of all where spare time has been treated as a problem before.
Both hide for one reason. The hours sit in separate places. One view holding every claim on a person is what brings either end into view early, and early is the only time the news is worth having.
The two also tend to sit side by side in the same team. One name on every plan, another with a quiet fortnight, and nobody sees the pair because nobody is looking at both rows at once. Seen together, the fix is usually obvious and cheap.
Where this shows up in PeopleMuster
PeopleMuster marks a day Over when planned hours pass the expected working day and Under when they fall well short of it, on the same grid, so both ends surface in the period ahead rather than in a review afterwards.
Questions people ask
How does over-allocation happen if everyone plans carefully?
Because careful planning happens in several places at once. Three leads each adding a reasonable commitment to the same person produce an unreasonable week that none of them can see.
Is under-allocation always bad?
No. Some slack absorbs the interruptions every week contains, and gaps between projects are normal. Persistent, unplanned under-allocation is the version worth asking about.
What should be done about a repeatedly over-allocated person?
Look at how many places commitments come from before looking at the person. A name appearing on every plan usually signals a dependency the team has not addressed.