Justify DesignOps Headcount with the CVV Equation
It’s math, for DesignOps
I’m team-building hard these days. In the past two years our Creative Operations org (DesignOps + ContentOps = CrOps) has grown from 1 to 12. And we still need more folks to support the rapidly scaling teams we work with.
But making a case for more headcount isn’t easy. It’s that time of year, and every ask has to be well rationalized. So when my boss came to me with a challenge to produce an ideal ratio of CrOps people to team members supported, I was a bit stumped. No two teams are the same. One might have 20 people but purr along with no drama, while another has 4 people but constantly changing priorities. Team maturity, project size, leadership involvement, deadline expectations, number of projects, process frameworks… my answer was that it all depends and every team is unique in how many CrOps folks are needed to effectively support them. I couldn’t possibly give him an answer that worked for everyone!
And then it hit me…
Well, not so much “hit me” but was coached out of me by my brilliant leadership coach/husband. A single ratio wouldn’t work. But an equation that accounted for all these factors could. And it does. It really does.
The Equation
Team Size x Complexity x Volume x Velocity = True Representation of Ops Effort
What this equation aims to show is the “true” or adjusted number of people that each Ops person supports.
There are really three main considerations in staffing up Design or Creative Ops: Complexity, Volume, and Velocity (CVV). Assessing whether those factors are high, medium, or low can help determine whether you need additional support.
So let’s assign a value to high, medium, and low for complexity, volume, and velocity.
High = 1.5
Medium = 1
Low = 0.5
If you can say that in an ideal world — for a team with a medium-level of complexity, volume, and velocity — an Ops person could reasonably support Y number of people, then you can assess whether or not a team is under/over/right staffed.
But first, let’s get the terminology straight.
Complexity
This accounts for things like team structure, ambiguous nature of the work, organizational swirl, difficult personalities, process maturity, team maturity, leadership impact, changing priorities, low psychological safety and more. It’s the stuff that can drive your team bananas. High complexity usually looks like stressed teams.
Volume
This is how much work there is, per supported team member, per defined period of time (for us it’s quarters). If you can determine what a comfortable — or “medium” — workload looks like for a team, you can assess the impact of this factor. For example, it might be 3 projects per person, per quarter. Or 5 projects per person, per month. Whatever makes sense for your organization.
Velocity
This is the speed at which the team is expected to work, and how fixed those timelines are. If the team has all the time in the world, that’s low velocity. If the timelines are hard, rapid, and stressful, that’s high velocity. Your comfortable turnaround time might be 3 weeks, might be 3 months. Depends on your team. Define the medium.
Let’s Try It
So let’s say for ease of math, in an ideal world an Ops person could reasonably support a team of about 10 people (“team” here being just the folks who are directly supported— not stakeholders).
If you support a team of 10 people where complexity, volume, and velocity are all average, or “medium,” your equation is:
10 (team members) x 1 (medium complexity) x 1 (medium volume) x 1 (medium velocity) =10 (true number of people supported)
This is your baseline. Any teams with an adjusted number over 10 might need additional support. Teams under 10 might be able to share some support with another team (or just enjoy the slower pace).
Now let’s look at another scenario. In this team, there’s high complexity, medium volume, and medium velocity:
10 (team members) x 1.5 (high complexity) x 1 (medium volume) x 1 (medium velocity) =15 (true number of people supported)
When I ran these equations for my CrOps team, it was truly eye-opening. One person was supporting an 11-person design team, which sounds fine… until you adjust for high everything and now it’s effectively a team of 37. No wonder he’s been so stressed.
In fact, showing these adjusted numbers to the headcount decision makers made it crystal clear for them where we desperately need help.
Try it yourself and see if the adjusted numbers resonate.
Hot tip: be sure to validate any assumptions you make about each high/medium/low level with the Ops team and Leads.
Additional Factors
Numbers never tell the whole story. There are other things to account for, like the skills of the Ops team members themselves (maybe a more junior person shouldn’t be expected to support the same level of “medium” as a more senior person), and how adding a role here may lessen the need for a role there. But it’s a great way to get started making a case for your next headcount ask.
This is also a useful tool to detect and avoid burnout (a very hot topic right now), adjust resourcing, and generally understand your own team’s capacity.
Do I think ratios are the best way to determine support for a creative team? It depends on the organization. I do think it’s a helpful data point and a window into your Ops team’s actual capacity that helps illustrate just how important customized operations solutions are.
I hope you find the CVV equation helpful! If you get stuck, drop me a line.
Love,
Sarah
