1. OPPORTUNITY SNAPSHOT S1, S4, and S5 support a recurring pattern of maintaining spreadsheets to assess capacity or supplement the workload view, with reported consequences including twenty minutes of weekly copying and one missed update. Including freelancers alongside internal staff is a distinct, isolated signal in S2, while S3 describes an inexpensive, effective export and S6 shows that the existing workload view is sufficient for one three-person team. The strongest research priorities are understanding useful capacity measures and keeping parallel plans consistent, followed by freelancer visibility; source counts do not establish distinct customer counts. 2. WORKAROUND EVIDENCE | Observed workaround | What the customer is trying to accomplish | Supporting sources | One short exact excerpt | Explicitly reported cost, friction, or benefit | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Copying project dates into a spreadsheet every Monday | Identify overbooked designers | S1 — 1 source | “Moving the dates takes about twenty minutes.” | Weekly copying takes about twenty minutes; spreadsheet enables an overbooking check. | | Including freelancers outside the workspace in a spreadsheet | See freelancer availability beside the internal team | S2 — 1 source | “Our spreadsheet includes freelancers who are not members of the project workspace.” | Spreadsheet includes people outside the workspace. No time cost stated. | | Updating both the scheduling tool and a capacity spreadsheet when deadlines change | Maintain dates in two planning records | S4 — 1 source | “Last week I changed one but forgot the other.” | Duplicate updating and one reported missed update. Further consequences are not stated. | Related evidence, without a confirmed workaround: S5 reports trying a workload view whose task counts treat very different assignments alike. This supports a capacity-measurement problem, but S5 does not explicitly describe an alternative workflow. Ordinary workflow and counterevidence: S3’s monthly client-report export takes two minutes and “works fine”; it is not an established problem. S6 uses the built-in workload view successfully without a spreadsheet. 3. UNDERLYING NEEDS Hypothesis: Assess capacity using measures that reflect meaningful differences in work. S1 uses a spreadsheet to identify overbooking; S5 explains why task counts may be inadequate when assignments differ substantially. The material does not reveal how S1 calculates capacity or establish that S1 shares S5’s problem. S6 qualifies this need: the existing view is sufficient for one three-person team. Hypothesis: Keep capacity planning consistent with changing project dates. S4 explicitly describes duplicate maintenance and a missed update; S1 shows a separate recurring transfer of dates. These suggest a need for dependable information across planning records, although only S4 reports an inconsistency. S3 shows that transferring data can also be inexpensive and effective. Hypothesis: Plan internal and freelance availability together, regardless of workspace membership. S2 directly connects the spreadsheet to visibility of external contributors. This is one source, with no reported time cost or scheduling failure. S6’s successful workflow does not establish whether that team uses freelancers. 4. OPPORTUNITIES TO INVESTIGATE 1. More meaningful capacity assessment Customer problem: Teams need to identify overbooking, but task counts can obscure differences in the amount of work assigned. Supporting sources: S1, S5. Qualifier: S6. Possible response — hypothesis: Investigate whether clearer workload guidance, lightweight effort estimates, or a limited capacity summary could support these decisions within the existing scheduling system. Why the spreadsheet might remain preferable: It may accommodate agency-specific capacity calculations more flexibly; those calculations are not supplied. Most important unanswered question: What information and calculation actually determine whether someone is overbooked? Ranking rationale: This addresses the planning job behind the spreadsheet, with evidence of both weekly effort and an inadequate measure. Understanding it first reduces the risk of merely accelerating transfers into a still-necessary spreadsheet. Any implementation must be scoped against the six-week limit. 2. Consistency between scheduling and capacity records Customer problem: Maintaining dates in two places requires repeated work and can leave records inconsistent. Supporting sources: S4, S1. Qualifier: S3. Possible response — hypothesis: Investigate a defined update workflow or a narrow, one-way refresh of scheduling dates into the capacity spreadsheet. Why the spreadsheet might remain preferable: Keeping it may preserve useful planning logic while requiring less workflow change. That logic needs inspection. Most important unanswered question: Which information must be maintained in both places, and what happens when the records disagree? Ranking rationale: S4 reports an actual missed update and S1 reports recurring copying time. It ranks second because neither the wider impact of inconsistencies nor the technical feasibility of a small integration is established. 3. Combined visibility of internal and freelance availability Customer problem: Planning needs extend to contributors who are not workspace members. Supporting source: S2. Possible response — hypothesis: Investigate a lightweight way to include external availability in a combined planning view without replacing the scheduling system. Why the spreadsheet might remain preferable: It already includes those contributors; the material reports no failure or maintenance burden. Most important unanswered question: How is freelancer availability obtained, kept current, and used in scheduling decisions? Ranking rationale: The need is explicit but supported by one source without a reported adverse consequence. Research should establish its importance before allocating scarce development time. 5. NEXT RESEARCH STEP | Opportunity | Neutral interview question | Small validation activity | Would strengthen the opportunity | Would weaken it | | --------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Meaningful capacity assessment | “Walk me through the last time you decided whether a designer had room for more work. What information did you use?” | Reconstruct one recent planning decision using the existing workload view and the participant’s spreadsheet; identify what information changed the decision. | Different assignment sizes repeatedly change capacity judgments, and the spreadsheet supplies essential missing information. | Task counts support the same decisions, or the spreadsheet adds no consequential information. | | Consistent planning records | “What happened the last time a deadline changed, from the initial change through any later updates?” | Trace a few recent deadline changes across both records, noting duplicate actions, mismatches, and their consequences. | Repeated copying or mismatches create observable rechecking or affect planning decisions. | The reported miss is isolated, differences are intentional, or reconciliation is easy and inconsequential. | | Internal and freelance visibility | “How did you work out everyone’s availability for the last project involving freelancers?” | Review one recent combined schedule and trace how external availability was gathered and used. | Combined visibility materially affects assignments, and maintaining it creates observable difficulty. | The spreadsheet remains easy to maintain, or external availability rarely influences scheduling decisions. | 6. HOLD OFF ON Replacing spreadsheets or automating every export. S3’s export works well, and S2’s spreadsheet provides useful coverage without reported friction. Evidence is missing on which spreadsheet functions users want to retain and which manual steps actually cause problems. Rebuilding the workload system around a single new capacity measure. S5 establishes a limitation of task counts, not agreement on a replacement measure; S6 finds the current view sufficient. The team needs evidence about useful calculations, differing workflows, and what can be delivered within six weeks without replacing the underlying system.