Capability gap

Data Platform capacity gap

Warehouse migration · gap opens September 28, 2026 · owner Priya Raghunathan, VP Engineering

18% below required capacityConfidence: high

Recommended plan

Close the near-term gap without over-hiring.

No single path closes this in time. Redeployment supplies capacity fastest from inside the team, a bounded contract covers the work that cannot wait, and the approved requisition stays open for the capability that has to outlast the migration.

Gap closure

18% → 6%

1.99 FTE of 3.0 FTE recovered

Cost band

$115K–$160K

ceiling $150K

Time to impact

2 weeks

first capacity from the contract

Durable capacity

1.9 FTE

still here after cutover

Capacity is scored across the delivery window from September 28, 2026 to cutover on December 19, 2026 — not at a single date, because the contractor leaves before the window ends.

Review what approval authorizes

Build

Redeploy one engineer into the migration workstream

Maya Chen moves from the billing pipeline to the migration workstream for the duration of the project, with a 6-week learning path covering schema translation and backfill validation.

Cost: $19K–$28K
Time to capacity: 1.5–6 wks
Durable: 0.9 FTE
Confidence: high

What happens

A development plan is drafted and assigned to her manager
Two seats are held on the Sep 14 learning cohort
A 1:1 agenda is prepared for the Sep 4 conversation
Two shadowing sessions are scheduled before the departing engineer leaves

What does not happen

No change to level, title or compensation
No entry is written to her performance record
Nothing is communicated to her by Current

People involved

Maya Chen
Software Engineer II, Product Engineering
Offered the assignment by her manager. She can decline.
Tomas Lindqvist
Director, Product Engineering
Makes the offer and absorbs a 0.6 FTE reduction for six weeks.

Assumptions

Maya Chen accepts the assignment. This is a conversation, not a system action.
Product Engineering can absorb a 0.6 FTE reduction for six weeks.
Learning path completion translates to 0.9 FTE effectiveness, not 1.0.

Borrow

Engage a contractor for a bounded migration package

One senior data migration contractor for 12 weeks, scoped to schema translation and backfill validation, ending at cutover with no renewal assumed.

Cost: $96K–$132K
Time to capacity: 2–3 wks
Durable: None
Confidence: high

What happens

A bounded statement of work is drafted from the workstream scope
Worker-classification screen runs against the drafted scope
The approval packet is routed to Finance and execution stops there

What does not happen

Nothing is sent to a vendor before Finance approves
No headcount is created and no employee record is touched

People involved

Wes Halloran
Finance Business Partner, R&D
Must approve $96K–$132K of contingent spend before anything is sent.
Procurement
MSA vendors 0031 and 0044
Receive the request only after Finance approves.

Assumptions

A qualified contractor is available from either MSA vendor within 3 weeks.
The migration workstream can be scoped as a bounded package a non-employee can own.
Rate holds at the midpoint of the current MSA band.

Buy

Keep the approved requisition active for durable capacity

Position 2291 stays open, unchanged in scope, level and band. Its target start moves to Nov 30 to match the actual pipeline. The contractor covers the near-term work, so this search optimizes for durable capability rather than speed.

Cost: $0 incremental
Time to capacity: 11–17 wks
Durable: 1.0 FTE
Confidence: medium

What happens

Target start date is updated on REQ-2291
The recruiting owner is told what changed and why

What does not happen

No candidate record is read, ranked or scored by Current
No change to the compensation band or approved budget
No candidate is advanced, rejected or contacted

People involved

Janine Okafor
Recruiting Lead, Engineering
Notified that the search brief has changed emphasis.
Priya Raghunathan
VP Engineering
Remains hiring manager of record.

Assumptions

Median time-to-fill of 11 weeks holds for this role and level.
Ramp to full effectiveness takes 6 weeks after start.
Approved compensation band is sufficient to close a candidate.

What this plan does to the gap

Contribution to the 3.0 FTE shortfall, averaged across the delivery window.

Build

Borrow

Gap

Build: 0.83 FTE · 28%
Borrow: 0.97 FTE · 32%
Buy: 0.19 FTE · 6%
Still uncovered: 1.01 FTE · 6% of required capacity

Alternatives rejected

Modeled and ruled out. Each one is a plan someone will suggest in the room.

Hire two engineers instead of one
Adds durable cost against a capacity need that ends at cutover, and still lands after the gap opens. It solves the plan’s least urgent problem most expensively.
Contractor only, skip the redeployment
Scored well on speed and cost but leaves zero durable capacity. It fails the 1.0 FTE floor set in the scenario and rebuilds the same gap in January.
Redeployment only, no contractor
Fits any budget and is fully reversible, but recovers only 28% of the gap. The migration would move its cutover date.
Cancel the requisition to fund more contract capacity
Trades durable capability for a 12-week rental and would require re-approval to reopen. Reversible on paper, expensive in practice.

Modeled, not recommended

Automate — Automate migration QA regression and release coordination. Worth 0.36 FTE across the window, 12% of the gap.

The regression suite and release calendar are owned by Platform Quality, outside the requesting org’s approval scope. Current cannot include a path it is not authorized to change.

Unblocked by: Scope change approved by Sana Iqbal, Director of Platform Quality

It also could not carry this gap alone — the schema translation work is where the shortfall actually sits, and that is not automatable.