Reporting

Utilization

Where it stands, and what it is built from.
No goal set
Movement

This is a problem on our side. It is being monitored and does not need action from you.

Where it stands

Utilization
50%
no firm-wide target, set per person
Time tracking · as of Oct 9, 2026
Latest period: 0.47583910755108083

Weekly, up to the latest week on file

By person
  • Priya Nair47%time data covers 4% of the window
  • Marcus Lee63%time data covers 4% of the window
  • Quinn Alvarez63%time data covers 3% of the window
  • Unnamed person66%time coverage not measured
  • Unnamed person69%time coverage not measured
  • Sam Bauer70%time data covers 4% of the window
  • Theo Sandoval74%time data covers 4% of the window
  • Ivan Kovac79%time data covers 6% of the window

Why it is where it is

We read this workspace and nothing in it answers this.

Utilization is one firm-wide ratio on this page: hours billed to clients over the hours the team was available. Taking it apart means splitting both halves person by person, and this workspace does not serve that split yet. A firm-wide figure is capable of hiding its own opposite, one lead over capacity against two juniors with nothing booked, and naming who is which from the single percentage would be a guess about specific people.

Both halves of the ratio already exist in your own records. Time entries carry who logged what and against which client, and employment records carry each person's expected weekly hours. Putting the two together person by person is built and is not yet switched on for this workspace. When it is, this section names who is under and who is over, each measured against the weeks they were actually on staff rather than the whole period. That last part matters more than it sounds: measuring somebody who joined halfway through against a full period of capacity has already named the wrong person out loud once.

What we checked, in order

We read this workspace and nothing in it answers this.

There is no ruled order of checks for Utilization 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

Hours that exist and are not earning arrive two ways, and this number cannot tell them apart. Either the work is not there, so capacity freed by a pause or a finished project sits until somebody points it at sold work, or the work IS there and the hours are not being logged against it, in which case the capacity is being consumed and only the record is missing. The first is a redeployment problem and the second is a recording problem. They move this number in the same direction by the same amount and they need opposite responses, so only one of them is fixed by finding more work. The check that separates them is on this board and it has already run: Timesheet completion reads 77%, which is outside its band. On that reading some of these hours are earning and simply unrecorded, so the recording problem is live and reassigning against it would move people who were already busy. A share inside its band is not the same as every hour being logged, so read this as the check pointing rather than as the answer.

Time trackingTimesheet completion tile, this board

What to do now

We read this workspace and nothing in it answers this.

There is no firm-wide level set for this number, so there is nothing to correct against this week. The right level differs by person, and a manager and a producer should not carry the same share.

This fills in once each person's own level is set. Until then, read it person by person on the team view rather than as one firm figure.

What stops it coming back

Keep enough sold work in front of the team that a pause has somewhere to send its hours the same week, and put the reassignment decision on a standing rhythm rather than leaving it to whoever notices.

A pause is not an unusual event and it should not need an unusual response. What makes it expensive is the lag between the work stopping and the hours being re-pointed, and that lag is a function of two things: whether there is sold work waiting, and whether anyone owns the decision. Coverage handles the first. A standing review handles the second. Neither is something the product decides for you, and both are cheaper than the recovery.

This closes no measured driver above, and does not claim to.

Time tracking

What happens if this is ignored

Idle capacity does not announce itself. It shows up later as income per person falling while headcount holds, which reads as a revenue problem and gets answered with a sales push when the hours to deliver that push were already sitting unused. Left long enough it becomes a hiring decision made against the wrong picture: the team looks fully committed on paper while the hours say otherwise. Where this lands is not this tile. It is AGI per FTE reads $187k against target ~$175K, which it is outside. It is already outside its band, so this is not a forecast. Part of it has happened, and that tile is where to go and look at it. Hours that exist and are not earning arrive as income per person, because the roster is the denominator either way. That tile is where idle capacity stops looking like a scheduling detail and starts looking like a revenue problem, which is also where it gets answered wrongly.

Time trackingAGI per FTE tile, this board

Is this target still telling you anything

We read this workspace and nothing in it answers this.

This metric carries no ratified target, so there is nothing here to calibrate. A target can only be too easy or too hard once somebody has set one.

Setting a level for this metric is what turns it from a number you watch into a number you are held to, and it is what this section reads against.

Source: Time tracking, as of Oct 9, 2026
Help and feedbackAvailable after sign-in