Work sample · Workforce planning
When hiring slips,
what changes?
Explore how hiring timing changes the staffing capacity available across a year—and the personnel costs that come with it.
Illustrative model. All figures are invented and do not represent NRC staffing or internal data.
Explore a hiring scenario.
Starting workforce: 90 full-time employees
The default example is shown below. Enable JavaScript to explore other scenarios.
6 months worked → 5.0 additional annual FTE from 10 hires.
Monthly headcount
The decision behind the numbers.
Both scenarios finish with 100 employees. A 6-month hiring delay leaves 6 months worked per new hire. Those hires contribute 5.0 annual FTE, bringing the total to 95.0 including the 90 continuing employees. Modeled spending is $750,000 below the reference.
Lower spending alone does not establish improved efficiency. The next question is whether the available staffing can meet the workload and delivery commitments.
Model assumptions & calculations
All employees work full-time. The starting workforce remains for all 12 months. Hiring delay counts full months before the new hires start together: no delay means month 1; a 6-month delay means month 7, leaving 6 months worked. There are no departures or changes in compensation, and every month receives equal weight.
Additional annual FTE = additional hires × (12 − hiring delay in months) ÷ 12. Total annual average FTE = 90 continuing employees + additional annual FTE. FTE means full-time equivalent. This is a simplified measure of labor over the year; year-end headcount counts people at one point in time.
Personnel spending = annual average FTE × assumed annual cost per employee. The same cost applies to everyone; monthly spending is prorated. Figures shown in millions are rounded to the nearest $1,000; differences are rounded to the nearest dollar.
This independently created demonstration uses fictional figures and is not a reproduction of an NRC system.
Monthly FTE utilization
Each full-time employee contributes 1/12 of an annual FTE per month worked in this model. “To date” adds those contributions through the indicated month, using the full year as the denominator; it is not an annualized year-to-date average.
| Month | New hires | Whole workforce | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| This month | To date | This month | To date | |
| 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7.50 | 7.50 |
| 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7.50 | 15.00 |
| 3 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7.50 | 22.50 |
| 4 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7.50 | 30.00 |
| 5 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7.50 | 37.50 |
| 6 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7.50 | 45.00 |
| 7 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 8.33 | 53.33 |
| 8 | 0.83 | 1.67 | 8.33 | 61.67 |
| 9 | 0.83 | 2.50 | 8.33 | 70.00 |
| 10 | 0.83 | 3.33 | 8.33 | 78.33 |
| 11 | 0.83 | 4.17 | 8.33 | 86.67 |
| 12 | 0.83 | 5.00 | 8.33 | 95.00 |
Year total: 90.00 existing + 5.00 new = 95.00 annual FTE.
Values are rounded to two decimals after calculation. Running totals use full precision.
About this example
Questions about the approach?
I built this to show how I frame workforce and budget questions. I’m happy to talk through the assumptions, or how this kind of analysis supports real planning decisions.