Skip to content

Running operations and initiatives

Work does not only arise from initiatives. That is why a demand has two kinds — and they differ in exactly one point: how the quantity is stated.

Initiative (Change)Running operations (Run)
Typically fromOKR, projectValue stream, target staffing of a role
QuantityTotal hours over the periodHours per period
End dateRequiredOptional — ongoing demand does not end
Example320 h between 1 October and 31 December60 h per month, from 1 January

Everything else is identical: same profile, same assignment, same coverage, same reports. Two separate objects would be duplication — and the question “how much running, how much change?” could then precisely not be answered in a single report.

Initiative: the total is distributed across the periods. The sum equals the total exactly — even when nothing divides evenly. The distribution setting controls whether more effort sits at the front or the back.

Running operations: every period carries the same quantity. Nothing is distributed — the figure is meant per period.

In both cases partial edge periods are counted pro rata. An ongoing demand starting on the 20th of a month does not need the full monthly quantity in that month; ignoring this systematically overfills the first month.

An ongoing demand without an end date would compute into infinity. Instead its grid ends at the planning horizon — twelve periods by default.

Two consequences worth knowing:

  • “Covered” here means: covered for the foreseeable period. An ongoing demand is never “ticked off”.
  • Beyond the horizon there is no figure. That is deliberate: a coverage statement for “in three years” would be invented.

A demand whose start lies in the past still begins there. Dropping past periods would make an under-coverage disappear retroactively.

The quantity fields depend on the kind: an initiative uses the total demand, running operations use the demand per period. If you switch the kind, the old value stays in the record but is no longer read — the demand counts as not quantifiable until the matching field is filled. This is deliberate: reusing the old number under the new meaning would be a silent reinterpretation.