Synaptwin

Operations sizer · creative production workflow

Team sizing for AI-supported operations

Size a team by what each kind of work grows with — makers, thinkers and leads — not by hours alone. Demo figures; use your own table.

Operations sizer · creative production workflow · Step 2 of 6

The work that does not scale with volume

Campaigns, initiatives and brands are sized by concurrency and carrying capacity, not by hours summed. Production obeys one law; strategy another; leadership a third.

Unverified · assumed coefficients · not a quote — a facilitator signs before any number is relied on

The scoping question, answered: an hours-based scope sizes this portfolio at 0.6 strategists. Sized by how many campaigns one person can hold at once, it is 0.2. Production keeps the hours law; strategy and leadership get their own.

The hours law · role-weeks × hours ÷ 1,800
0.6
12 × 3 weeks = 36 campaign-weeks × 32.4 h = 1,166 h ÷ 1,800 = 0.6
→
Law B · role-weeks ÷ (working weeks × concurrency)
0.2
36 campaign-weeks ÷ (46 weeks × 4 in flight = 184) = 0.2

A worked example: 12 brand campaigns at 3 weeks of strategy each. An hours-based scope asks for 0.6 strategists; with 4 campaigns in flight per strategist it is 0.2. Same volume, different law — the industry's habit, not anyone's mistake.

The laws, applied one at a time

Start from one law for all work — every hour divided by 1,800. Switch each law on and the kind of work it fits is sized by what it actually grows with.

The team35.8one law for all work: 35.8

Campaign archetypes

Elapsed weeks per role and how many such campaigns one person runs in parallel — the concurrency is the coefficient the hours law lacks.

Strategist
wk ·×
Creative lead
wk ·×
Social lead
wk ·×
Campaign producer
wk ·×
Strategist
wk ·×
Creative lead
wk ·×
Social lead
wk ·×
Campaign producer
wk ·×
Strategist
wk ·×
Creative lead
wk ·×
Social lead
wk ·×
Campaign producer
wk ·×
weeks and concurrency are assumptions — edit any cell

Brands by tier

Carrying capacity: how many brands one FTE can hold at once, by tier. The binding constraint (concurrency or carrying) sizes the role.

What the brands change now
  • Strategist0.2 by campaigns · 1.3 by brands → 1.3
  • Creative lead1.3 by campaigns · 1.8 by brands → 1.8
  • Social lead0 by campaigns · 1.3 by brands → 1.3
  • Campaign producer1.4 by campaigns · 1 by brands → 1.4
  • Law C — step roles3 brands ÷ 4 → 1 client leads · 3 leads in all

The larger of the two sizes each role. Brands count only with Law B and Law C switched on above — the hours law ignores them.

Portfolio roleRole-weeks / yrBy hours ÷1,800ConcurrencyCarryingSized
Strategist360.60.21.31.3
Creative lead3085.51.31.81.8
Social lead0001.31.3
Campaign producer59210.71.411.4
Law B total16.85.8

Bold = the constraint that binds. Struck through = what the hours law would have asked for.

Law C — step roles

Leadership does not divide by volume: one head per account, one per N brands, one per N markets — never below the first step.

Client / account lead
one per 4 brands (3)
1
Operating lead
one per account
1
Brand & governance lead
one per 8 markets (6)
1
Verified system map · ArchifyWhy this team — the brief, the work, the law, the rolescompiling Open full screen
compiling

Interactive: click a node · R route probe · L semantic lens · M map · P play story · F present · E export share card.

Volumes: demo scenario · promo-heavy discounter. Every figure computed; every assumption labelled. · en

Work with us

You have seen the method and the record it produces. The next step is a conversation.

Write to us