Skip to content

Wilk Strategy · tools

What the operating case is worth, in your numbers.

Three calculators for pricing what an operation may already be carrying: people leaving, avoidable repeat work, and capacity lost to unplanned shrinkage. Start with your own low, central, and high inputs. Nothing is stored or sent anywhere. The results are modeled exposure under your assumptions: not a benchmark, forecast, or promised saving.

The worked example demonstrates the structure only. It starts with an intentionally uncombined set of illustrative assumptions. No default is a benchmark.

Scenarios

Inputs

This is a capacity-and-overtime exposure model. It values every lost scheduled hour at the loaded hourly rate, then adds the full cost of overtime used to cover some of them. That may be useful for a decision case, but it is not automatically an incremental P&L: finance may already book paid absence elsewhere or count only the overtime premium as incremental.

Low, central, and high are inputs you choose and defend. They are not a confidence interval.

Calculator one

The cost of the people who left.

(Hiring + Training + Ramp-up loss) × Annual exits

The replacement invoice is visible. The ramp is easier to miss: a new hire is paid in full while producing less than full output. The scenario envelope keeps the uncertain exit count visible instead of pretending it is a single known number.

Recruiter time and onboarding.
Instructor time, materials, and the trainee's wage during training.
Keep this basis visible when comparing it with the capacity model below.
How far below full output the average ramping agent runs.
Annual exits · scenario envelope
Central attrition scenario
Hire and train–
Ramp-up loss–
Cost per exit–
Annual exits–
Modeled annual exposure–

Show the coaching capacity turnover redirects

This does not prescribe a leader-to-agent ratio or price a missed coaching hour. It uses your current span and funded coaching hours to show how a tenure shift redirects protected development time into onboarding.

A local input, not a recommended ratio.
Reading it honestly. This prices a current scenario. It does not promise an intervention will reduce attrition. Name the movement you are testing, the evidence window, and the result that would tell you the theory was wrong.

Calculator two

The cost of work the operation may have made for itself.

(Monthly total contacts × Avoidable repeat-contact share) × Cost per contact

Use linked disposition data to estimate the share of total handled contacts that are avoidable repeats from unresolved work. Do not substitute 1 − FCR unless your data definitions and denominators prove it is the same thing. FCR and repeat contacts often count different populations.

Avoidable repeat-contact share of total contacts (%)
Observed linked repeats ÷ total contacts. Exclude legitimate planned follow-ups unless they belong in the decision case.
Wage plus benefits plus overhead, divided by contacts handled.
Central repeat-contact scenario
Repeat contacts per month–
Monthly exposure–
Modeled annual exposure–

What this tests. A low handle-time target and a rising repeat-contact share can be a hypothesis worth testing, not proof that one caused the other. Price the linked repeat volume, then read it beside resolution evidence, contact mix, and the target that may be competing with it.

Calculator three

The capacity value at risk when people did not show up.

(Scheduled hours × Unplanned shrinkage) × Capacity value per hour, plus full overtime cost for backfilled hours

This is a capacity-and-overtime exposure model. It values every lost scheduled hour at the loaded hourly rate, then adds the full cost of overtime used to cover some of them. That may be useful for a decision case, but it is not automatically an incremental P&L: finance may already book paid absence elsewhere or count only the overtime premium as incremental.

The combined view reconciles this weekly equivalent with the attrition wage basis.
Unplanned shrinkage (%) · scenario envelope
Sick and no-show only. Planned leave and training are budgeted capacity.
Central shrinkage scenario
Hours lost per week–
Weekly capacity value at risk–
Weekly full overtime cost–
Annual capacity-and-overtime exposure–

A caution about causation. A rise in sick calls after a high-occupancy period is a timing pattern until it survives comparison with matched periods, contact mix, seasonality, policy changes, and other plausible explanations. Narrowed recovery time is one mechanism to test, not an established conclusion.

All three together

Combine them only after you can explain the overlap and wage bases.

The models may measure related losses. A repeat handled on overtime can appear in repeat-contact and capacity arithmetic. Attrition and shrinkage may share causes. The raw components stay visible, but the combined figure remains unavailable until an explicit check says what was reconciled.

Your explained estimate of double-counting across the three models. There is no arbitrary ceiling.

Central scenario components
Attrition–
Avoidable repeat contacts–
Unplanned shrinkage–
Sum before overlap adjustment–
Modeled exposure after declared overlap–

“Central scenario: –. These are our stated inputs and checks, not a forecast. Replace them with yours, expose the trade-offs, and set stop conditions before approval.”

Why use a scenario envelope? Low, central, and high are inputs you choose and defend. They are not a confidence interval. A finance partner should be able to see every assumption, challenge it, and understand what changes when it moves.