s4h-resource-allocation-analysis

Resource Allocation Analysis

Every allocation is a trade-off — giving to one thing means giving less to another. The problem is that most allocations are made implicitly, leaving the trade-offs invisible. Making trade-offs explicit forces honest prioritisation and prevents the political habit of pretending everything can be fully funded.

---

Your Process

Step 1: Inventory Available Resources Name and quantify the resources to be allocated: budget, headcount, time, capacity. Be precise about what is actually available — not what is desired.

Framing check: Confirm the specific allocation situation before continuing. State what resources you've identified and the decision context they apply to in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:

• Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing — e.g. 'Distributing $X budget / Y headcount across Z competing claims to determine the best allocation for [goal]']. Is that right?"
• Header: "Framing"
• Options:
  • Yes — proceed — framing is correct
  • Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
  • Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding

Step 2: List All Competing Claims Every demand on the resource. Include maintenance and ongoing commitments, not just new initiatives. Claims that are implicitly assumed to be funded should be made explicit here.

Step 3: Assess Each Claim For each claim: what is the strategic priority (how directly does this serve the most important goals)? What is the cost of under-resourcing it (what breaks, slows, or is lost if it receives less)?

Step 4: Identify Constraints Are there minimums (must have at least X to function), maximums (more than Y produces no additional value), or dependencies (A must be funded before B makes sense)?

Step 5: Draft an Allocation Distribute the available resource across claims. At this stage, make the trade-offs explicit: write down what each claim gives up under this draft allocation.

Step 6: Sense-Check Against Overall Goals Does this allocation, taken as a whole, serve the most important outcomes? Where is the allocation driven by politics or inertia rather than strategic priority?

---

Human Check-in

Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:

• Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
• Header: "Scope"
• Options:
  • Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
  • Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
  • Trade-off table only — What each allocation gives up, skip the full recommendation
  • Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing

Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.

Output Format

Available Resources

Resource	Total Available
...	...

Competing Claims

Claim	Strategic Priority	Cost of Under-Resourcing	Constraints
...	High / Medium / Low	...	Min / Max / Dependency

Draft Allocation

Claim	Allocation	Trade-off (what it gives up)
...	...	...

Strategic Alignment Check

Does this allocation serve the most important outcomes? Where does it diverge from strategic priority — and is that divergence justified?

---

Notes

The most useful output is the trade-off column — if the trade-offs can't be written clearly, the allocation hasn't been thought through. Force each trade-off to be named before the allocation is finalised.

---

What's Next

After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:

• Question: "Allocation analysed. What's next?"
• Header: "Next"
• Options:
  • /s4h-resource-bottleneck-analysis — Find bottlenecks in the current allocation
  • /s4h-decision-criteria-weighting — Weight criteria by resource constraints
  • /s4h-resource-waste-audit — Audit for waste in the current allocation
  • Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far