What Are Three Different Ways to Allocate Resources

A shocking 73% of projects fail due to poor resource management, according to a recent industry survey.

Don’t let weak choices sink you.

So, what are three different ways to allocate resources effectively?

In this post, we’ll explore how priority, capacity, and value strategies can improve your workflow, helping you finish important tasks, keep workloads fair, and get the best results.

First, let’s define resources and why they matter.

What Resources Are and Why They’re Important

Resources come in many forms:

• People: The skills, time, and energy of your team members
• Money: Your budget and financial assets
• Time: The hours, days, or weeks available for projects
• Equipment: Tools, technology, and machinery
• Facilities: Physical spaces, buildings, and infrastructure

When you manage resources well, you can:

• Finish projects on time and within budget
• Prevent team burnout and stress
• Make sure the most important work gets done first
• Adapt quickly when priorities change
• Get more value from limited resources

Let’s explore three proven methods to improve project management, starting with priority-based resource allocation.

Method 1: Priority-Based Resource Allocation

Overloaded and unsure where to start? Priority-based resource allocation is a popular resource allocation technique.

It’s about identifying the main goals and take care of it first.

How Priority-Based Assignment Works

Priority-based allocation is like sorting your tasks from the most to the least important.

Here’s a step-by-step process to apply it:

1. List all projects and tasks that need support
2. Rank each item based on importance and urgency
3. Label each item with a clear order of relevance
4. Address the most urgent tasks first
5. Move down the list until all resources are distributed

Your most critical work gets what it needs before anything else.

Priority Frameworks You Can Use

Several frameworks can help you prioritize actions:

The MoSCoW Method

• Must-have: Essential items that cannot be skipped
• Should-have: Relevant but lower-risk tasks
• Could-have: Desirable but do not add value
• Won’t-have: Items that can wait for later

The Eisenhower Matrix

The Eisenhower Matrix helps you figure out what to do now, what to plan for later, what to delegate, and what to let go.

Urgent	Not Urgent
Important: Do First	Important: Schedule
Not Important: Assign	Not Important: Remove

Many project managers on forums ask, “How do you guys handle competing resource priorities?”

The answer often lies in using one of these frameworks across all projects.

Real-World Example: Lab Resource Allocation in FMCG

At a leading FMCG company, our quality control lab was overloaded with testing requests from many different product lines.

As a microbiologist, I noticed delays in key product checks, which could have affected product release timelines and customer trust.

A priority-based plan helped us handle the workload:

• Focused on the top three product lines that had the highest sales and shortest shelf life
• Shifted 70% of our lab team and equipment time to the most important products
• Slowed down testing on lower-risk products with a strong track record
• Set up a clear process for urgent testing from other teams

The result? Testing was 40% faster, fully compliant, and on-time delivery.

 It was a great example of how smart resource use in the lab protects both standards and profits.

Pros and Cons of Priority-Based Allotment

Pros:

• Ensures the most important work always gets done
• Creates clear decision-making guidelines
• Helps teams avoid multitasking
• Makes it easier to say “no” or “not now” to trivial requests
• Works well when resources are in short supply.

Cons:

• Can leave lower-priority (but still important) work undone
• May lead to a situation where everything seems urgent
• Ignores the team’s available bandwidth.
• Might affect morale when working on less important projects.
• Requires strong leadership to make hard decisions

Expert Tip: Prioritize what matters. When everything is a priority, nothing is—concentrate on what makes the biggest difference.

Method 2: Capacity-Based Resource Allocation

Ever feel like your team’s drowning in work? That’s what happens when you ignore capacity.

Capacity based approach values resource awareness over overcommitment.

Resources are distributed based on actual capability limits.

What is Capacity-Based Resource Allocation?

Capacity-based allocation addresses the recurring problem where managers hear, “Our team is always overbooked”, but keep adding more work anyway.

Your resources are like a cup—once it’s full, adding more only causes overflow.

First measure the cup, not guess, then pour what it can hold.

How to Implement Capacity-Based Share

Follow these steps to put capacity-based allocation into practice:

1. Measure the true capacity of each resource (people, equipment, facilities)
2. Track current utilization to understand what’s already in use
3. Calculate available capacity by subtracting utilization from total capacity
4. Only commit resources that actually exist and are available
5. Create buffers for unexpected work and emergencies (usually 10-20%)
6. Say no or delay work that exceeds the available limit

Real-World Example: Manufacturing Resource Distribution

A furniture manufacturing company was constantly missing delivery deadlines despite everyone working overtime.

Their problem? They were accepting orders without considering actual production capacity.

By implementing capacity-based allocation, they:

• Measured true production output for each manufacturing line
• Designed a visual capacity dashboard to compare available vs. used throughput.
• Only accepted orders that fit within the available capacity
• Built-in a 15% buffer for machine maintenance and quality issues

The results were remarkable. On-time deliveries jumped from 65% to 92%, and overtime for employees fell by 40%.

This manufacturing resource allocation model transformed their business.

Tools for Capacity Management

Here are some popular options:

• Resource Management Software: Tools like Resource Guru, Float, and 10,000ft
• Project Management Platforms: Monday.com, Asana, and Wrike with resource views
• Specialized Capacity Tools: TeamGantt, Mavenlink, and Resource Planning Software
• Simple Options: Even customized spreadsheets can work for smaller teams

Pros and Cons of Capacity-Based Allotment

Pros:

1. Prevents burnout and overuse of assets.
2. Sets achievable expectations for what can be done.
3. Improves quality by not rushing or overloading resources.
4. Leads to more accurate project timelines and deadlines.
5. Builds trust with stakeholders through reliable delivery.

Cons:

• May hinder ambitious goals or new opportunities.
• Requires accurate tracking systems that some find burdensome.
• Can feel too strict in the face of urgent demands.
• May cause friction when declining requests based on capacity.
• Needs regular updating as availability fluctuates.

Expert Tip: Avoid unnecessary meetings, admin work, and rework—they can quietly consume up to 30% of a team’s productivity.

When to Use Capacity-Based Method

This method works best when:

• Staff fatigue is a concern
• Quality is critical and cannot be compromised
• You have regular, predictable work
• You already track time or resource usage
• You need to improve delivery reliability

Next, we’ll look at method 3, which focuses on getting the best return from your investments.

People also read:

Describe the Ideal Qualities of Time Management Goals: 7 Critical Elements for Success

Workflow vs Routine: The Real Deal and Why It Matters

Method 3: Value-Based Resource Allocation

Value-based allocation is perhaps the most refined of the three methods.

Not all tasks are the same.

Some bring massive returns, while others just eat up time.

This method spots the areas where resources will bring the most value.

Capital is channelled towards the greatest benefits relative to their costs.

Value-based allocation is a form of strategic resource allocation that looks beyond immediate needs to long-term benefits.

It’s similar to how smart investors choose stocks—they look for the biggest returns, not just any returns.

How to Implement Value-Based Allotment

Follow these steps to use value-based allocation:

1. Define “value” for your organization (revenue, customer satisfaction, market share, etc.)
2. Estimate the value each project or activity will generate
3. Calculate resource requirements for each option
4. Compare value-to-resource ratios across all options
5. Offer resources to highest-value activities first
6. Evaluate outcomes over time and adjust

Value Calculation Methods

Different organizations measure value in different ways:

• Financial Value: ROI, NPV, payback period
• Strategic Value: Market position, competitive advantage
• Customer Value: NPS impact, retention improvement
• Operational Value: Efficiency gains, quality improvements
• Risk Value: Risk reduction, compliance benefits

Real-World Example: Financial Resource Planning

A regional bank was struggling to decide which branches should receive renovation budgets. Using value-based share, they:

• Analyzed each branch’s contribution to revenue and growth
• Calculated the expected return from renovations at each location
• Considered strategic factors like market competition
• Developed a value score combining financial and strategic factors.
• Allocated renovation budgets based on value scores, not just size or age

This funding strategy led to a 35% higher return on renovation investments than their previous method.

Decision Framework

Many professionals search for a “resource allocation template that actually works.”

Here’s a simple matrix:

Value	Easy to Implement	Hard to Implement
High Value	Do First	Carefully Plan
Medium Value	Quick Wins	Consider Case by Case
Low Value	Do If Time Permits	Avoid or Postpone

Pros and Cons of Value-Based Method

Pros:

• Increases the return on asset investments
• Matches resource use with business objectives.
• Provides clear standards for tough decisions.
• Helps identify and eliminate low-value activities
• Promotes a results-driven culture, not just activity.

Cons:

• Can be difficult to measure some forms of value
• Requires more analysis than other methods
• May undervalue long-term investments with delayed returns
• Relies on reliable data to make good estimates

Expert Tip: Say no when the value doesn’t justify the investment.

Comparing the Three Resource Allocation Methods

Now that we’ve covered each method let’s compare them to see which spending plan fits your needs best.

Factor	Priority-Based	Capacity-Based	Value-Based
Main Focus	What matters most	What’s actually possible	What brings the most gain
Best For	Clear decision-making	Preventing overload	Maximizing returns
Complexity	Low to Medium	Medium	Medium to High
Data Needed	Priority rankings	Resource availability	Value estimates
Tools Required	Priority framework	Capacity tracking	Value calculation
Main Benefit	Ensures important work gets done	Prevents burnout	Maximizes ROI
Main Challenge	Low-priority work may never happen	May limit ambition	Value can be hard to measure

Final Thought

While priority-based allocation ensures critical work receives attention first, capacity-based allocation prevents burnout and maintains quality and value-based allocation maximizes returns on investment.

The most successful organizations don’t rely on just one approach. They blend these methods based on their specific needs and challenges.

Resource share isn’t just a technical exercise—it’s about making intentional choices that fit your overall plan.

knowing when to prioritize urgency, respect capacity limits, or pursue maximum value, you build a reliable framework for success that benefits both your crew and your bottom line.

The next time you face resource constraints, ask yourself: “Which allocation method or mix of methods will best serve our current objectives while setting us up for what’s ahead?”

Your answer to this question can deliver exceptional results with the resources you have.