Plans and dependencies
Phases, tasks, milestones, and predecessors on a schedule that understands working calendars and holidays rather than raw elapsed days.
Platform · front office
Task trackers tell you whether work is done. They cannot tell you whether the engagement made money, because the hours, the rates, the pass-through costs, and the invoice live somewhere else. Here they are the same records.
What it does
Agencies, consultancies, MSPs, engineering and architecture practices, law and accounting firms. Businesses where a project overrunning by fifteen percent is the difference between a good year and a flat one.
Phases, tasks, milestones, and predecessors on a schedule that understands working calendars and holidays rather than raw elapsed days.
Timers, weekly grids, mobile entry, and agent-drafted timesheets built from calendar and activity. Approval before anything reaches the ledger.
Who is allocated, who is over-committed, and what utilisation looks like eight weeks out — against a target you set per role.
Fee, cost, and contingency tracked against actuals continuously, with forecast-at-complete recalculated every time a timesheet posts.
Revenue less labour at cost, less pass-throughs, less allocated overhead. The number that tells you whether the engagement was worth doing.
Time and materials, fixed fee by milestone, retainers with rollover, and capped engagements — invoiced from the same records that track delivery.
Nearly every service firm we work with runs a competent project tool and still cannot answer, without a spreadsheet, which of last quarter’s engagements were profitable. That is not a failure of discipline. It is arithmetic that requires four things the task tracker does not hold.
So the honest answer is that project profitability is an accounting calculation that happens to need a schedule as an input. Running it in a tool that does not hold the ledger means exporting four datasets and joining them by hand, monthly, forever. Most firms do this quarterly at best, which means they find out about a bad engagement roughly ten weeks after they could have done something about it.
When forecast-at-complete recalculates on every posted timesheet and vendor bill, the conversation moves from post-mortem to intervention. A project trending fourteen percent over at week five is a scope conversation you can still have with the client. The same project discovered at close-out is a write-off and an awkward renewal.
It also changes how you price. After two or three quarters of clean margin data by project type and by client, you can see which engagements are systematically under-scoped — and that pattern is nearly always specific and fixable rather than general. It is usually one phase, one client, or one pricing assumption.
The Project Coordinator agent drafts timesheets from calendar entries and activity, so consultants confirm rather than reconstruct their week on a Friday afternoon — which is where most time data goes wrong. It flags allocations that exceed capacity, tasks with no owner, and projects whose burn rate has diverged from plan. All of it is Level 1 by default: it proposes, a person commits.
Keep them. Engineering teams should not be moved off their tracker to satisfy a finance requirement, and asking them to is how a rollout fails in month two.
We read tasks, assignments, and completion state from Jira, Asana, Linear, Monday, or ClickUp into the business graph, and add the layer they do not have — cost, billing, utilisation, and margin. Delivery keeps its tool. Finance gets its number. This is the more common arrangement among our software and agency customers, and it is the one we usually recommend first.
Sprint boards, story points, burndown charts, and developer workflow. Those belong in an engineering tool and we connect to yours rather than asking your team to relitigate a decision they already made.
Questions
True margin by engagement, from your own timesheets, vendor bills, and invoices — before you commit to anything.