The larger an accounting firm becomes, the harder it is to answer a seemingly simple question: who has capacity? Multiple offices, specialized service lines, remote and alternative work arrangements, and fluctuating workloads make it difficult for anyone to see the full picture. This is where centralized scheduling can create real value.
In my experience, one of the biggest challenges firms face is not necessarily a lack of resources, but a lack of visibility. A centralized resource management function can see capacity across the firm, identify workload imbalances, and help allocate work before staffing issues impact deadlines. It also provides better forecasting, more informed hiring decisions, and a more strategic approach to workforce planning.
For many firms, this represents a significant shift. Historically, staffing decisions were made at the engagement level, often based on relationships, availability, and immediate needs. While that approach can work in smaller organizations, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain as firms expand and workloads become more complex.
Like any operating model, centralized scheduling comes with challenges. Scheduling is not purely a numbers exercise. I often describe scheduling as an art rather than a science. Partners and managers understand client relationships, engagement complexities, team dynamics, and development goals in ways that cannot always be captured in a scheduling system.
Skeptics of centralized scheduling often argue that resource management cannot understand a client as well as the engagement team. They are right, but resource managers are not meant to replace the judgment of partners and managers. Their role is to provide the firmwide visibility those leaders often do not have.
Engagement teams understand their clients; resource management understands the broader staffing picture. Neither has the complete picture on their own. The best staffing decisions happen when both perspectives are considered.
The firms that seem to get the most value from centralized scheduling avoid both extremes. A fully decentralized model often leads to inconsistent workloads, limited visibility, and missed opportunities to leverage capacity across the firm. A fully centralized model can create frustration when engagement leaders feel disconnected from staffing decisions.
The most effective approach is a partnership. Resource management provides visibility, forecasting, and workload balancing. Partners and managers provide engagement specific knowledge and client considerations. When both groups work together, firms can make staffing decisions that are both operationally efficient and practical from a client service perspective.
The biggest staffing issues rarely stem from a lack of people. They more often stem from a lack of visibility. As talent pressures continue across the profession, firms are being asked to do more with limited resources. Firms that can accurately forecast demand, understand available capacity, and make informed staffing decisions will be better positioned to meet those challenges.
The debate in this area is often framed as centralized vs. decentralized scheduling. I believe that is approaching the issue from the wrong angle. The real question is whether or not firms have enough visibility into their capacity and demand to make the most informed staffing decisions.
The goal is not centralized control. The goal is making the most effective staffing decisions with the best information.
Michael P. Mintzer, CPA, is the resources manager at Maillie LLP in West Chester, Pa. He can be reached at mmintzer@maillie.com.
Sign up for PICPA's weekly professional and technical updates by completing this form.
Statements of fact and opinion are the author's responsibility alone and do not imply an opinion on the part of the PICPA's officers or members. The information contained herein does not constitute accounting, legal, or professional advice. For actionable advice, you must engage or consult with a qualified professional.