# Allocate tasks against a skill matrix

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: Two people each have six hours. Only Jo has the documented localization skill. Localization needs eight hours and layout needs four.

## Decision

The twelve-hour total fits aggregate availability, but localization exceeds the only qualified person’s six hours by two. Hold that assignment or establish another qualified route.

## Owned work

- Validate the skill requirement
  - Owner role: Receiving reviewer
  - Acceptance evidence: Localization requires the stated qualification; attendance alone is not qualification.
- Match demand to eligible people
  - Owner role: Coordinator
  - Acceptance evidence: Eight localization hours have only six eligible hours.
- Resolve the skill gap
  - Owner role: Delivery lead
  - Acceptance evidence: A qualified substitute, smaller scope or later window is confirmed before assignment.

## Workflow

1. Validate the skill requirement. Check: Localization requires the stated qualification; attendance alone is not qualification.
2. Match demand to eligible people. Check: Eight localization hours have only six eligible hours.
3. Resolve the skill gap. Check: A qualified substitute, smaller scope or later window is confirmed before assignment.

## Judgment

A skill matrix is a local planning input and can be incomplete or outdated. Confirm the actual task requirement and demonstrated eligibility.


## Filled manual planning note

The twelve-hour total fits aggregate availability, but localization exceeds the only qualified person’s six hours by two. Hold that assignment or establish another qualified route. Aggregate demand=8+4=12 and availability=6+6=12. Qualified localization capacity is only six; aggregate equality does not prove a feasible assignment. A skill matrix is a local planning input and can be incomplete or outdated. Confirm the actual task requirement and demonstrated eligibility.


## Workflow questions

### Can spare layout capacity fill localization automatically?

No. Availability without the required qualification is not interchangeable in this case.

### Must Jo do all layout work too?

No. Mina is eligible for layout; resolve the localization shortfall independently.

## Product connection

Use the owned checks and downloaded brief to discuss this planning decision alongside your TeamBoostAI tasks. Confirm available fields, roles and account features separately. The example is manual; it does not calculate live analytics, create work or run an experiment in the product.

Confirm account availability before adopting this manual outline.

## Original worked case

Synthetic records, manual planning only. No account import or live analytics.

### Inspect the invented case records

Work or person | Hours | Qualification
--- | --- | ---
Localization | 8 | Jo only
Layout | 4 | Jo or Mina
Jo available | 6 | Localization and layout
Mina available | 6 | Layout

### Reasoning

Aggregate demand=8+4=12 and availability=6+6=12. Qualified localization capacity is only six; aggregate equality does not prove a feasible assignment.

### Bounded result

The twelve-hour total fits aggregate availability, but localization exceeds the only qualified person’s six hours by two. Hold that assignment or establish another qualified route.

### Distinct decision

The decision tests skill-constrained feasibility even when pooled hours balance.

### Limits

A skill matrix is a local planning input and can be incomplete or outdated. Confirm the actual task requirement and demonstrated eligibility.

### Definitions and method context

- GAO Schedule Assessment Guide — https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-16-89g — General schedule-model context. All records, local policies and arithmetic are original toy examples, not a certified or optimized schedule.