When delivery slows down, many organizations assume they need to “work harder” or “move faster”. In reality, the most common cause of poor project performance is overload. Too many projects run at once, people are spread thin across competing priorities, and progress becomes fragmented. Teams stay busy, but outcomes arrive late.
This is why capacity planning matters at the portfolio level. It is not about perfect resource forecasting. It is about making sure the organization is not attempting to deliver more change than it can realistically absorb. The most effective lever is often the simplest: limit work in progress (WIP) so fewer initiatives run at the same time, which increases throughput and reduces firefighting.
Why overload destroys delivery performance
Overload creates predictable failure patterns. Recognizing them is the first step to fixing them.
Context switching consumes real capacity
When people are assigned to too many projects, time is lost switching between tasks, meetings, and priorities. It is not just an inconvenience, it is a structural reduction in delivery capacity. Work takes longer because attention is split.
Dependencies become more fragile
Most projects rely on shared roles such as SMEs, analysts, engineers, finance partners, security reviewers, or operational leads. When those roles are overloaded, dependencies slip and small delays cascade.
Hidden queues form around bottlenecks
A portfolio can look healthy on paper, but delivery slows when bottlenecks accumulate work. Approval queues, review queues, and testing queues are common examples. People wait, not because the work is difficult, but because it is trapped behind other work.
Everything becomes urgent
When there are too many parallel initiatives, teams start to treat all deadlines as equally critical. This creates constant priority reshuffling and makes planning unreliable.
What capacity planning should achieve
Capacity planning is often misunderstood. It does not need to be a complex model with perfect accuracy. It should achieve three practical outcomes:
• Visibility – leaders can see where overload exists and what it will impact.
• Trade-offs – starting a new project requires stopping, pausing, or de-prioritizing something else.
• Stability – priorities stay stable enough for teams to deliver predictably.
If your capacity process does not change decisions, it is unlikely to improve delivery.
The simplest portfolio capacity model that works
You can implement a useful capacity view without complex time tracking or detailed percentage allocations. The following approach is often enough to reveal overload and create better trade-offs.
Step 1 – Identify your critical roles and teams
Focus on roles that frequently become bottlenecks, such as:
• engineering SMEs
• operations leads
• quality or compliance reviewers
• IT delivery teams
• security and risk functions
• procurement and vendor management
• finance partners
• change and training leads
You do not need to track everyone. Track the roles that constrain throughput.
Step 2 – Track active project load by role
For each critical role or team, track how many projects they are supporting. Use a simple threshold:
• Green – manageable project load
• Amber – stretched, delays likely
• Red – overloaded, delivery risk high
This is not perfect, but it is actionable. It gives leaders a reason to ask: what work should be delayed, sequenced, or stopped?
Step 3 – Look ahead 4 to 8 weeks for workload peaks
You do not need to model every hour. You do need to identify where the next workload peaks are likely to occur. Common peaks include:
• planned shutdown windows
• testing and go-live phases
• vendor delivery points
• compliance deadlines
• training and rollout windows
When you can see peaks coming, you can sequence projects to avoid collisions.
Step 4 – Apply a rule for starting new work
The most effective capacity improvement is a simple rule:
New projects can only start if capacity exists, or if another project is paused or stopped.
This forces realistic trade-offs. Without a rule like this, prioritization meetings become theoretical because new work is approved even when delivery teams are already overloaded.
WIP limits – the fastest way to increase throughput
Work in progress limits are common in Lean and flow-based delivery approaches. The logic is simple: the more work you have in progress, the slower each item moves. By limiting WIP, you increase throughput because teams can focus and finish.
Why WIP limits work
• teams complete work before starting new work
• bottlenecks become visible quickly
• priorities stabilize because fewer initiatives compete
• quality improves because work is less rushed and less fragmented
Where to apply WIP limits in project portfolios
You can apply WIP limits at multiple levels:
• Portfolio level – limit the total number of active projects in each category.
• Team level – limit the number of active projects each delivery team supports.
• Role level – limit projects requiring input from a scarce role such as a specialist reviewer.
Start with one area where overload is most painful. Once leaders see improved delivery speed, WIP limits tend to expand naturally.
How to make trade-offs without causing chaos
One reason leaders hesitate to stop or pause projects is fear of political fallout. A structured decision process reduces that risk.
Use a simple “keep, pause, stop” review
In monthly portfolio reviews, use a structured review process:
• Keep – projects that are critical, time-sensitive, or delivering high value.
• Pause – projects that are valuable but can wait, or are blocked by constraints.
• Stop – projects that no longer align to strategy or are unlikely to deliver value.
The key is to treat pausing as a normal portfolio tool, not a failure. Pausing protects delivery of higher priority work.
Make the cost of starting explicit
Every time a new project starts, something else slows down. Make that visible. When leaders see that starting project A will delay project B, decisions become more realistic.
Align on prioritization criteria
Trade-offs are easier when criteria are agreed. These might include strategic alignment, compliance urgency, customer impact, risk reduction, and cost or efficiency benefits. When criteria are consistent, the portfolio becomes less political.
Portfolio reporting that supports capacity decisions
To make capacity planning and WIP limits work, you need portfolio reporting that is decision-oriented. A practical portfolio view should show:
• projects by category and priority
• status and trend (green, amber, red plus rationale)
• key milestones and upcoming workload peaks
• decisions needed and due dates
• capacity indicators by team or critical role
This can be implemented incrementally. The main requirement is consistent project data and a cadence where the portfolio view is used for decisions, not for presentations.
How Microsoft 365 teams can make this easier
Many organizations already use Microsoft 365 for collaboration and documentation, but portfolio capacity visibility often sits in spreadsheets because it feels like the easiest option. The issue is that spreadsheet-based roll-ups are manual and quickly become outdated. As portfolios grow, teams often look for an approach that keeps project data consistent and supports roll-ups without heavy admin.
Some organizations support their portfolio governance with platforms such as PPM Software from BrightWork as an example of a PPM option that can help teams maintain consistent project information and reporting, making it easier to spot overload and manage work in progress across the portfolio.
A practical rollout plan for capacity planning and WIP limits
If you want to implement this quickly, use a phased approach:
• Week 1 – identify the top 5 bottleneck roles and list active projects they support
• Week 2 – introduce a simple green, amber, red capacity indicator per role or team
• Week 3 – set a WIP limit in one area, such as capex projects or digital initiatives
• Week 4 – run a monthly “keep, pause, stop” review using the capacity view
Do not try to optimize everything at once. The goal is to create an honest view of overload, then use it to make sequencing decisions that improve throughput.
Key takeaways
• Overload is a structural problem, not a motivation problem.
• Simple capacity visibility is more useful than complex resource forecasting.
• WIP limits increase throughput by reducing context switching and dependency collisions.
• Portfolio governance should focus on trade-offs and sequencing, not on reporting theatre.
Reducing project overload is one of the fastest ways to improve delivery performance. When the portfolio is realistic, teams can focus, risks surface earlier, and leadership decisions have clearer consequences. Capacity planning and WIP limits turn “doing more” into “finishing more”, which is what the business actually needs.
