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.
Today vs the three laws — the same work, counted two ways
The delta is arithmetic on your table — heads, people cost, cost per approved unit — not a benchmark and not a promise. Three laws of sizing, reconciled into one team.
Unverified · assumed coefficients · not a quote — a facilitator signs before any number is relied on
The sizing question: does one law — every hour ÷ 1,800 — size every role right?
Every role: hours ÷ 1,800 a year. Right for production, wrong for strategy and leadership.
Apply all three: counted by hours, this portfolio is over-scoped by 2.1 people — mostly strategy.
- addsLaw A — 5.9 makers: the hours law assumes 150 productive hours a month; people have about 115.
- cutsLaw B — 11 fewer thinkers: campaigns in flight bind (Campaign producer).
- addsLaw C — 3 leads: 3 brands ÷ 4, one per account, 6 markets ÷ 8.
Same on both sides: 142,560 assets a year, the same operating model, 272 campaigns, 3 brands, 6 markets. Only the counting changes.
Sized by hours
- Makers (Law A)19
- Thinkers (Law B)16.8
- Leads (Law C)0
The cost to deliver, from the engine — the client’s price sits on top of it (the offer).
Sized by the three laws
- Makers (Law A)19
- Thinkers (Law B)16.8
- Leads (Law C)0
The cost to deliver, from the engine — the client’s price sits on top of it (the offer).
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