RESOURCE COMPARISON
See how two goals load the same time and cash capacities
This calculator compares two different goals without pretending to know which matters more. Each goal retains its own remaining units, hours per unit, direct cost per unit, and deadline. The output shows time and cash utilization separately so a value judgment is never hidden inside a synthetic score.
| Goal layer | Remaining units | Rate | Total | Unit |
|---|
Detailed calculation process
Formula, declared symbols, substitutions, intermediate results, and reconciliation
UT = (Q − Q0)h/(W·HT); UC = (Q − Q0)c/(W·HC)
For each goal, remaining units are converted into total hours and cash. Each total is divided by that goal’s deadline capacity; the two percentages are never averaged.
| Symbol | Meaning | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Q, Q0 | goal scope and accepted progress; required units are Q−Q0 | units |
| h, c | person-hours and direct cash per remaining unit | hours/unit; currency/unit |
| W | weeks to each goal deadline | weeks |
| HT, HC | shared weekly hour and cash capacity | hours/week; currency/week |
- Compute each goal’s remaining accepted scope before applying rates.
- A time load=100×1.5=150 hours; capacity=10×18=180; utilization=83.33%.
- A cash load=$800; capacity=$1,000; utilization=80%.
- B time load=140 hours; capacity=8×18=144; utilization=97.22%.
- B cash load=$350; capacity=$800; utilization=43.75%.
- Final reconciliation: utilization multiplied by its capacity returns each original load; retain 16.67% A time headroom and 2.78% B time headroom before rounding.
How to compare responsibly
- Freeze independent unit definitions.
- Count remaining units for each goal.
- Estimate hours per matching unit.
- Record direct cash per unit.
- Use the capacity actually shareable by both goals.
- Discuss value only after reviewing separate utilization.
Five foundations
Time load
Hours required across the deadline.
Cash load
Direct spending across the deadline.
Utilization
Demand divided by capacity.
Constraint
Dimension closest to or above 100%.
Priority
Human choice not calculated here.
Deep dives
Shared-pool assumption
Capacity must be genuinely available to either goal, not earmarked elsewhere.
Deadline compression
The same total demand becomes more intense under fewer weeks.
Nonfungible value
Health, safety, promises, and emotional meaning cannot be converted to utilization percentages.
Evidence
Use quotations, a task sample, accepted-unit counts, and a calendar/budget baseline from the same period. Above 100% means that dimension is infeasible as entered; exactly 100% leaves no numerical slack.
Limits
- No benefit or urgency valuation.
- No interaction between goals.
- Constant per-unit rates.
- No financing or time-value effects.
- No recommendation about relationship priority.
Glossary
- Resource pool
- Capacity genuinely shareable by goals.
- Time utilization
- Required hours divided by deadline hours.
- Cash utilization
- Direct cost divided by deadline cash.
- Constraint
- Resource limiting feasibility.
- Slack
- Capacity left after demand.
- Earmark
- Capacity unavailable to another goal.
Cases
Course versus garden: the garden has lower cash load but nearly consumes all time, prompting seasonal staging.
Move versus celebration: a legal housing deadline is discussed outside the calculator even though both utilization profiles fit.
Important note
Use professional advice when either goal involves debt, contracts, safety, healthcare, or legal deadlines.
Result interpretation
Goal B is time-constrained while Goal A is cash-constrained
Under the defaults, Goal B consumes 97.22% of weekly time capacity but only 43.75% of cash capacity. Goal A leaves more time headroom yet consumes 80% of cash. Neither profile is inherently better: the result identifies which resource needs protection if that goal is chosen.
Decision and sensitivity
Small time-estimate errors matter most for Goal B
Adding only 0.05 hour per remaining B unit raises its load by seven hours and pushes utilization above 102%. Goal A can absorb about 30 additional hours before reaching its time capacity. Validate B’s hours-per-unit with a pilot sample, and validate A’s direct-cost estimate before committing shared cash.
Questions
Why compare two different goals?
It exposes how each competes for the same weekly time and cash pools. The comparison is most useful when the same people and budget would support either goal.
Why no overall priority score?
Priority contains preferences that arithmetic cannot infer. Keeping time and cash utilization separate prevents a hidden weighting from deciding for the users.
Can utilization exceed 100%?
Yes; it means the goal exceeds that declared capacity. It is a signal to revise the plan, not a percentage that should be capped for display.
Are indirect costs included?
Only if you incorporate them into direct cost per unit and document the allocation. Shared overhead should not be charged twice merely because two goals are compared.
Can deadlines differ?
Yes. Each goal uses its own weeks. A shorter deadline can create higher weekly utilization even when its total work is smaller.
Does lower utilization mean the goal should win?
No. Value, urgency, reversibility, obligations, and risk remain outside the model. Utilization describes resource pressure, not merit.
Why calculate both time and cash?
A goal can fit one resource while exhausting the other. Showing both prevents a low-cost but time-intensive plan from appearing automatically easy.
What if the goals can run together?
Allocate the shared weekly capacities explicitly and test the combined loads. Two individual utilizations below 100% do not prove their simultaneous sum is feasible.
How should current progress be valued?
Count only accepted units that reduce the same defined scope. Sunk effort and spending should not increase priority simply because they already occurred.
When should goals be split into phases?
Split them when rates, costs, skills, or deadlines change materially by phase. A single average can conceal the period that actually overloads capacity.