AGI per FTE
What would helpThis is a problem on our side. It is being monitored and does not need action from you.
This is a problem on our side. It is being monitored and does not need action from you.
Where it stands
Monthly, up to the last 12 months
Why it is where it is
We read this workspace and nothing in it answers this.
This is one firm-wide ratio: adjusted gross income over the people on staff. Taking it apart means attributing income to the roles and accounts that produced it, and this workspace does not serve that split yet. The single figure is capable of hiding its own opposite, a strong book carried by a few people against a wide bench earning little, and naming which is which from the ratio alone would be a guess about specific people.
Both halves of the ratio are already in your own records. Billing records carry which account the income came from, and employment records carry who was on staff and at what share of full time. Joining the two so the income lands on the roles that earned it is what this section is waiting for. Until it does, the honest reading of this number is a firm-wide one, and the period it covers is stated with the metric's own sources rather than assumed.
What we checked, in order
We read this workspace and nothing in it answers this.
There is no ruled order of checks for AGI per FTE yet. Three of these ordered diagnostics exist and they attach to the profit share, an account under the floor, and absorbed work. This metric is not one of them.
An ordered set of checks is worth more than a list of things to look at, because the order is what stops the most expensive move being tried first. Writing one for this metric is a decision about how it should be diagnosed rather than a gap in the data.
Root cause
This is a ratio and its two halves run on different clocks, which is why it moves without anybody deciding it should. Income arrives when work is delivered and billed. Headcount arrives the day somebody starts, and a person carries full weight in the divisor long before they carry full weight in the numerator. So a firm hiring ahead of sold work sees this number dip first and recover later, and a firm whose income softens sees it dip immediately, and the two look identical here. The cause is usually the ORDER of two decisions rather than either decision on its own. The check that separates them is on this board and it has already run: Utilization reads 50%, with no band set for it, so read it as a level rather than as a verdict.
What to do now
Before changing anything about the roster, the check is already done. The check that separates them is on this board and it has already run: Utilization reads 50%, with no band set for it, so read it as a level rather than as a verdict. Answer the half that reading points at this week, and leave the other half alone until it has its own evidence.
The two responses are opposite and both are expensive when applied to the wrong half. Repricing a book that is simply not busy enough leaves the bench where it is and risks the work the firm still has. Chasing volume for a team already at capacity buys revenue that arrives underpriced and consumes the room the firm needed for better work. The check itself is one number on the same board, which is why doing it first costs nothing.
This closes no measured driver above, and does not claim to.
What stops it coming back
Stage hiring against sold work rather than against expected work, and track ramp explicitly so a dip that is only a ramp is not read as a decline.
Two habits keep this honest over time. The first is timing: a hire committed against work that is signed lands in the divisor at roughly the same time as its income, and the dip mostly disappears. The second is disclosure: when a dip IS just ramp, saying so on the number stops the firm treating a temporary shape as a trend and cutting into it. Neither is a product setting; both are how the decision gets made.
This closes no measured driver above, and does not claim to.
What happens if this is ignored
Income per person is what pays for everything that is not client work, so when it sits under the band the profit share thins first and quietly. The failure mode is not dramatic. It is a year where the firm feels busy, bills roughly what it billed before, and finds there is less left at the end of it, followed by a cost-cutting response aimed at the overhead rather than at the income or the pause that actually caused it. Where this lands is not this tile. It is People, overhead and profit reads 19% against profit share, target ~20%, which it is inside. It is inside its band today, which is what holding this position is currently buying you. Income per person is what funds everything that is not client work, so when it thins the profit share is the first place it shows, and it shows as a squeeze nobody decided on.
Is this target still telling you anything
We read this workspace and nothing in it answers this.
The window spans a measurement change, so its periods are not one series: compute path changed: demo-history-seed@1 to live-serving-rollup@3
How this metric is measured changed inside the period this section would look back over, so counting hits across it would be counting two different measurements as one. This fills in once the whole window sits on one basis.
Adjusted gross income per full-time-equivalent employee. Adjusted gross income divided by full-time-equivalent headcount, with part-time roles counted as fractions of a person. Contractors and outsourced delivery are not in that headcount, so work moved to them lifts this reading without anything having improved. What follows is what this workspace's own stored months show, which is a different basis from the reading above: the number at the top is the current read, and these are the periods captured one month at a time, so the most recent of them can sit a little away from it. It is unchanged at $191.8k against the previous month, which read $191.8k. At $191.8k it is the highest reading in the 14 months captured so far. This is what the captured history shows. It does not say which client, engagement or person moved it: that needs per-driver detail this metric does not yet capture, and it is not inferred here.
The productivity yardstick for the whole team: how much earned income each full-time person generates. The working level is about $175K per FTE; below it, you are carrying more team than the income supports. It sits on this board against target ~$175K.
- Window
- Stated as of Oct 22, 2026. The period the reading covers is set by its source and is not stated on this tile.
- How it is counted
- Adjusted gross income divided by full-time-equivalent headcount, with part-time roles counted as fractions of a person. Contractors and outsourced delivery are not in that headcount, so work moved to them lifts this reading without anything having improved.
- Source
- Financial ledger, as of Oct 22, 2026
- Drivers
- Reasoned from this metric's own definition and sources. The driver breakdown is not composed for this tile yet, and the section below says what it would take.