Romanos Boraine LogoRomanos BoraineStructured systems, evidence & reporting
Book a discovery call

Submission Analysis Capacity Calculator

Estimate how much analyst time is needed to process evidence properly within deadline.

This calculator is for teams handling consultation responses, interviews, case studies, workshop notes, submissions, or similar qualitative inputs. It gives a first estimate of analyst hours, team weeks, and delivery risk under the current workflow, then compares that against a more structured review setup.

Best for policy review teams, evaluation projects, donor-funded studies, consultation processes, and contractors handling large evidence volumes.

Built around real review, coding, extraction, and reporting pressure.

Use the calculatorView all calculators
Page summary

What this calculator helps you see

This calculator estimates how much analyst time the current evidence volume is likely to require, how that compares with the team's available capacity, and whether the project looks on time, at risk, or high risk. It is useful when the team's problem sounds like this: we have a large body of evidence and need to know whether we can process it properly within deadline.

  • current total analyst hours likely needed
  • improved analyst hours under a more structured workflow
  • current and improved team weeks needed
  • whether the delivery risk appears to sit mainly in team size, handling time per submission, or weak structure for analysis
Output

Estimated analyst hours, team weeks, delivery risk, and potential hours removed with a better setup.

The first result appears on-page. The full breakdown is sent after the report form is submitted, along with the recommended service fit and a copyable summary.

Calculator

Enter your current analysis assumptions

Use realistic working numbers. This is an indicative estimate of analyst hours and delivery risk.

inputs

Include consultation responses, interviews, case studies, workshop notes, or similar items.

minutes

Time spent reading or reviewing the item before extraction starts.

minutes

Time spent pulling out the relevant facts, themes, quotes, or datapoints.

minutes

Time spent applying themes, categories, labels, or coding rules.

minutes

Time spent checking accuracy, consistency, completeness, or coding quality.

analysts

Count the people who will actually process the material.

hours

Use realistic weekly hours for analysis work, not total employment hours.

weeks

Use the real time available to get the evidence processed properly.

per hour

Use a blended internal rate or billable equivalent.

%

Use a cautious percentage for what better analysis structure, database design, or workflow support could remove.

This is an indicative estimate based on the information provided. Real savings will vary by workflow design, team habits, data quality, and implementation scope.

What it measures

The estimate focuses on the handling time that sits inside each submission or evidence item.

The model adds together the average time spent reading, extracting, tagging, and quality-checking each submission, then compares total analyst hours against the team's available hours over the deadline period. It also models an improved scenario where better structure reduces handling time per item, rather than assuming the evidence volume disappears.

  • reading time per submission
  • extraction time per submission
  • tagging or coding time per submission
  • quality-checking time per submission
  • available analyst capacity across the deadline window
  • likely delivery risk under the current setup
How the estimate works

The calculator compares workload, capacity, and deadline pressure

The calculator first combines the average read, extraction, tagging, and QA time for each submission. That produces a current total hour estimate for the full evidence volume. It then compares that against the team's available capacity, based on analyst count, weekly hours, and deadline weeks. Finally, it models a more structured setup using a time-reduction percentage to show how much pressure could come out of the process with better analysis design.

  • On time when the work fits within the deadline
  • At risk when the work sits slightly above available capacity
  • High risk when the work sits materially above available capacity
Best fit

Who this calculator is best for

Use it when the evidence volume is clear, but the team is unsure whether the current setup can process it properly in time.

Public consultation and policy review teams

Evaluation and research projects with large qualitative evidence sets

Donor-funded programmes working to fixed reporting deadlines

Contractors handling interviews, workshop notes, case studies, and submissions

Teams that need a clearer view of analyst hours, team weeks, and delivery risk

Example scenarios

How teams usually use this estimate

Policy or consultation example

A policy review team handling a high volume of consultation responses can use this to estimate whether the analyst team can read, extract, tag, and quality-check the full submission set before synthesis and drafting begin.

Research or evaluation example

A donor-funded evaluation with interviews, workshop notes, and case studies can use it to test whether the evidence volume is realistic for the current team size, or whether the bigger issue is the amount of manual handling required per item.

Related services

Service areas connected to this result

A high-risk result usually points to one of three things: not enough analyst capacity, too much time spent per submission, or a weak analysis structure. The service fit should reflect that.

Database Architecture

Build a structured evidence system so submissions, interviews, and case material can be sorted, tracked, and analysed more consistently.

View service

Data Synthesis

Reduce handling pressure by turning large volumes of input into clearer patterns, findings, and usable evidence.

View service

Report Writing

Move faster from analysed material into clear, structured outputs once the evidence base is ready.

View service

Insight Generation

Turn coded or synthesised material into practical findings, implications, and decision-ready outputs.

View service
Relevant proof

A workflow with the same kind of evidence pressure

A public consultation workflow needed submissions, stakeholder comments, and supporting evidence stored in a clear structure so the team could track themes, refer back to source material easily, and use the findings in drafting and review.

Policy Evidence Workflow for a Local Government White Paper

A national local government review needed one defensible route from public submissions to drafting and later consultation review. Inputs arrived in mixed formats, specialist scrutiny was high, and the team could not afford to lose the line from source text to claims, themes, and policy language. The system also had to support more than analysis: it needed to feed drafting, survive public consultation, and keep later review comments visible instead of letting them disappear into tracked changes.

Result: Built the working system behind evidence capture, synthesis, drafting support, and coded review for the February 2026 draft White Paper and the finalisation process.

Services involved
Database ArchitectureCustom AI BuildingData SynthesisReport WritingInsight Generation
Key numbers
100-page synthesis11 thematic reportsFebruary 2026 draftLive review database
Read case study6 min read
Related reading

Useful reading around the pressure behind the estimate

These pieces connect the capacity estimate to submission synthesis, evidence structure, and reporting pressure.

How to Synthesise Stakeholder Submissions Without Losing Source Traceability

Synthesise stakeholder submissions with source IDs, coding, framework matrices, and QA for traceable, defensible reporting.

Read article17 min read

How to Build Evidence Workflows for Reporting and Accountability

Learn how to build evidence workflows that improve reporting, source traceability, and decision-ready findings.

Read article13 min read

The Real Cost of Messy Evidence Workflows

Messy evidence workflows waste capacity, raise reporting risk, and create review pain. Learn the signs and what a better system looks like.

Read article10 min read

Insight Generation: Turning Raw Information into Decision-Ready Insight

Learn how to turn raw data, documents, and reports into decision-ready insight with a clear evidence workflow. See the guide and case proof.

Read article16 min read
FAQ

Questions about the Submission Analysis Capacity Calculator

Is this mainly a staffing calculator?

No. It estimates capacity and delivery risk, but it also helps show whether the real problem is too much manual handling per submission or weak structure for analysis.

What counts as a submission here?

Any item that needs to be read and processed in a comparable way. That could be a consultation response, interview, workshop note, case study, stakeholder comment, or another qualitative evidence item.

Should we include QA time?

Yes. Quality-checking is part of the real workload. Leaving it out usually understates the delivery risk.

What does an at-risk result usually mean?

It usually means the current workflow is close to or slightly beyond what the team can handle within deadline. That may still be recoverable through better structure, clearer coding rules, or reduced handling time per submission.

What does a high-risk result usually mean?

It usually means the current setup is materially underpowered for the evidence volume. The team may need more analyst capacity, a more efficient analysis design, or both.

Does this apply to policy and donor-funded work?

Yes. It is especially relevant where consultation responses, interviews, workshop notes, or case material have to be processed properly before findings and reporting can move forward.

Let's talk

Turn the result into a clearer workflow brief

If the result points to a real deadline risk, send the evidence volume, source types, current review method, team size, deadline window, and output required. That makes it easier to see whether the main fix sits in capacity, analysis structure, synthesis support, or reporting.

Send a project briefBook a discovery call