Sales capacity planning works out how much selling power an organisation needs to hit a revenue target: how many reps, carrying what quota, producing at what expected attainment, arriving on what dates. The output is a hiring schedule and a quota number, and both are decided before anyone sells anything.
Multiply the reps by the quota and you have a number that has never once been achieved. That is the mistake the whole discipline exists to correct. Assigned quota is what the company asks for; expected production is what it will get, and the ratio between them is the team's historical attainment, which for most organisations sits well below 100% by design. Quotas set so that everyone clears them are not really targets. So the capacity model has three terms rather than two, and the third one is the one companies leave out.
Then the calendar does more damage than the arithmetic. A rep hired in January contributes something close to their ramped-year production; a rep hired in September contributes a rounding error, and both appear identically in a headcount plan. Attrition compounds it, because a team of 24 that loses four reps and hires four reps has replaced experienced production with ramping production and lost capacity while holding headcount flat. A capacity plan that survives contact with the year states hire dates, ramp curves and an assumed attrition rate, and it is read as a recruiting commitment rather than as a budget line. Missing a hiring date in March is a revenue miss in October that nobody will connect back to it.
A company needs $18,000,000 of new business next year. Quota is $750,000 a rep, 24 reps are fully ramped on 1 January, and the team has averaged 78% attainment over the last two years. A rep hired in January produces about half a quota in their first year.
Assigned quota matched the target exactly, which is what makes this the common failure. A company that stopped at the second row would have concluded it needed no hiring at all and finished the year 22% short.
Fourteen hires is the answer to a different question than the one the model asked, because the model assumed every one of them started in January. Hires that land evenly across the year produce roughly half of what the plan credited them with, so the same fourteen people deliver around $2,000,000 instead of $4,095,000 and the year comes up short while headcount is exactly on plan. Two habits fix it. Put the hire month in the model and ramp each hire from their own start date, and track the recruiting funnel against those dates from January, because a role that takes four months to fill was effectively cut from the plan the day it was approved.
The long form lives in the guides: Setting sales quotas.
Commish pays sales capacity planning the way your plan describes it, shows the arithmetic on every line, and traces each payment back to the deal that earned it.