Skip to content
Constraint Finder

LearnLesson 6 of 8

Starved vs. overloaded

A constraint at 25% utilisation is not a capacity problem. It is a feed problem.

Thirty-five call slots, nine heldA grid of 35 squares representing available call slots. Nine are filled; twenty-six are empty. Beside it, a funnel shows 100 buyers, 30 booked, 10 showed.9 of 35 slots held · 25% utilised100 buyers30 book10 showthe leak is here, not in the calendar

Here is a pattern that shows up in coaching, consulting and agency businesses again and again. The owner says, "I am the bottleneck. I need more leads or another closer." Then you look at the numbers.

Thirty-five call slots on the calendar last month. Nine calls actually held. That is 25% utilisation. The constraint is real, the owner's selling time does limit the business, but it is not overloaded. It is starved.

Where did the other twenty-six slots go? Upstream. Of every hundred buyers, thirty booked a call. Of those thirty, ten showed up. Two leaks, 70% and 67%, before anyone reached the calendar. Each held call ended up costing about $2,200 in ad spend, so spend could not scale, so revenue sat flat.

If you had hired a second closer here, you would have two people sharing nine calls.

A starved constraint is a feed problem, not a capacity problem. The fix is in the booking, the confirmation, the reminder, the no-show handling. Fill the slots you already have. In this example, going from nine held calls to twenty-six is a near-tripling of revenue with zero new capacity and zero new leads.

So before you conclude that the constraint needs more of anything, check its utilisation. Under about 70% and the answer is almost always upstream. That one check is the difference between and an expensive mistake.

Check yourself

Two questions. Pick one answer each; you will see why straight away.

  1. 1.A constraint is running at 25% utilisation. What kind of problem is that?

     

  2. 2.100 buyers, 30 book, 10 show. Where should the first fix go?