DECISION PRODUCT / WORKFORCE INVESTMENT

Which workforce investments still hold when funding and outcomes change?

Change the funding or delivery conditions. See how many training places the plan can afford, what outcomes the assumptions imply, and where a different allocation might perform better.

Try a scenario ↓Review sources and assumptions

ONTARIO PUBLIC VACANCY DATAADJUSTABLE PLANNING CASE

WHAT IS REAL IN THIS MODEL? The 2025 Ontario industry-vacancy figures are published data. Programme costs, provider capacity, participation and outcome rates are planning assumptions—not verified programme results or hiring forecasts. See the evidence and method.

01 / THE DECISION LAB

Start with a situation. See what changes.

No modelling experience needed. Explore the preset scenarios first, then adjust the numbers if you want a closer look.

ChooseSelect a funding or outcome scenario.
SeeRead the financial takeaway alongside the results.
ExploreOpen detailed controls and evidence when ready.

Choose a scenario

Click one of the situations below. The figures on the right update immediately.

START HERE

Available programme funding Proposed programme envelope; includes a 12% planning allowance for delivery and administration.

Fine-tune assumptions and training places

Adjust the planning assumptions and seat allocation. These figures are illustrative until validated against programme and provider evidence.

Planning share of industry vacancies Baseline = 1.0% of reported 2025 average industry vacancies. This is an assumed recruitment share—not an observed programme demand or hiring forecast.

Participant support intensity Changes the assumed support cost per funded seat; does not automatically improve outcomes.

Completion assumption Adjusts every pathway’s completion rate in percentage points.

12-month retention assumption Adjusts the retention rate of placed participants in percentage points.

FUNDED TRAINING SEATS

—

Funded participant seats

—

Estimated retained workers, 12 months

—

Programme cost per retained worker

—

Funding headroom / shortfall

THE FINANCIAL TAKEAWAY

Preparing the scenario…

Choose a situation to see what it means for funding and outcomes.

These are conditional planning estimates, not verified programme results.

Why does the model show this result?

DETAILED DECISION SIGNAL

Preparing the scenario…

FINANCIAL ALLOCATION TEST · SAME SPENDING LIMIT

Could the same funding go further?

See what happens when the model redistributes training places under the same spending limit. This is a cost-only comparison, not a recommendation.

—

Potential retained workers

YOUR ALLOCATION——

COST-ONLY BENCHMARK——

View the allocation comparison and its limits

Industry pathway	Your seats	Benchmark seats	Change

Decision boundary: This is a mathematical comparison under assumed costs and outcome rates—not a validated policy recommendation. It does not account for equity, regional access, job quality, employer commitments or provider delivery risk. A real engagement would test these constraints before reallocating a dollar.

See the pathway-by-pathway figures

Each row represents a broad Ontario industry. Observed 2025 average vacancies are the published input; planning caps are calculated from the share selected above. Provider capacity, costs and outcome rates remain assumptions requiring project-level verification. Results are rounded.

Industry portfolio	2025 vacancies (observed)	Planning cap (assumed)	Funded seats	Completions	Placements	12-month retained	Cost / retained

Programme costs include assumed training and support inputs plus a 12% delivery/administration planning allowance. Sector vacancies are 2025 annual-average vacancy stocks, not expected hires, occupational projections or client outcomes. Modelled results are conditional scenarios, not forecasts.

Compare all five stress cases

Presets below retain your selected training-seat allocation. They change only the named assumptions, so you can see where the recommendation is fragile.

Condition	Spend	Retained	Cost / retained	Funding gap

For the access-investment case only, improvement in completion (+4 points) and retention (+3 points) is a hypothetical scenario assumption, not an established effect of added supports.

Review baseline cost and outcome assumptions

The vacancy reference above is observed Ontario data. The following baseline training parameters are transparent planning assumptions, not published statistics, client records or provider quotations. Funding, vacancy share, seats, support intensity and outcome-rate stresses can be changed in the controls. A commissioned engagement would validate the underlying rates.

Industry portfolio	Seat ceiling	Training / seat (CAD)	Support / seat (CAD)	Completion	Placement	12m retention

All planning figures shown in this register are replaceable when evidence becomes available. The 12% administration allowance is an additional programme assumption.

Trace the evidence and validation needs

The public-source input is separated from the planning values. A commissioned model would replace unverified programme inputs with client and provider evidence, a quality grade and a named update owner.

Variable family	Public demo status	Needed before investment
Industry vacancy reference	Published 2025 Ontario averages	Occupation and region filters; employer verification
Programme recruitment share	Adjustable planning assumption	Employer commitments and recruitment evidence
Training seats and unit cost	Seats adjustable; unit costs and ceilings assumed	Provider capacity, programme budgets and pricing
Population access and supports	Support intensity adjustable; access not yet modelled	Community and administrative evidence
Completion, placement, retention	Completion and retention stress adjustable; base rates assumed	Longitudinal programme outcomes

The complete engagement would also assess displacement, job quality, distributional impacts, confidence intervals, attribution, institutional capacity and procurement constraints.

02 / FROM THE MODEL TO DELIVERY

The investment choice is only the beginning.

GATE 01 · VALIDATE

Confirm the real constraints.

Verify demand with employers, provider capacity with training institutions, participant barriers with affected communities, and delivery costs with the budget owner.

GATE 02 · AUTHORIZE

Make the trade-off explicit.

Set decision criteria for employment quality, access, public value, affordability and risk. Record who may approve reallocations and what changes trigger review.

GATE 03 · OPERATE

Leave a rerunnable system.

Connect the allocation model to intake, employer partnerships, placement support, twelve-month retention tracking and quarterly investment decisions.

03 / THE COMMISSIONED BUILD

Make the model fit the actual decision.

A commissioned workforce investment system would link local demand and wage evidence, provider and participant data, multi-year financial scenarios, equity and access criteria, governance, implementation milestones and a maintained evidence register. The client would inherit an updateable tool, not only a recommendation.

Bring us the workforce decision →

Read the associated capability-model case · Explore selected work

THE EVIDENCE LAYER

A decision model should make the difference between data and assumptions visible.

These published Ontario vacancy estimates now anchor the scenario's placement-cap calculation. The source values are published averages; the recruitment share, delivery rates and programme economics are explicit planning assumptions.

Open source figures, references and method notes

Ontario · 2025 average industry vacancies

36,500

Health care and social assistance. Observed vacancy levels are a planning reference, not a guarantee of entry-level or programme-accessible positions.

FAO Ontario · 2026 labour-market report ↗

Ontario · 2025 average industry vacancies

15,400

Professional, scientific and technical services. Industry vacancies cover varied roles and credentials, not a single digital training pathway.

FAO Ontario · 2026 labour-market report ↗

Ontario · 2025 average industry vacancies

9,000

Construction. Vacancy stock is distinct from annual hiring flows; employers and training providers must validate the specific occupations.

FAO Ontario · 2026 labour-market report ↗

METHOD NOTE

What the public lab calculates

Starting from published Ontario 2025 average industry vacancies, the lab applies a user-selected recruitment share (1.0% by default) to define a hypothetical placement cap. It then applies planned seats, completion, placement and retention assumptions and compares costs with a proposed funding envelope. The vacancy share is not a measured employer conversion rate. This is a transparent single-period planning model, not an occupational forecast, client assessment or Common Practice's private multi-year engine.

WHAT A REAL COMMISSION ADDS

Federal occupational projections for longer-term openings, distinct from current vacancies.
Apprenticeship cohort evidence where programmes and credentials are comparable.
Employer validation of the share of industry vacancies accessible to a specific programme, plus verified provider seats, participant-access needs, support costs and longitudinal retention measures.
Multi-year financial and delivery controls, an assumptions register, sensitivity tests and an accountable operating model.