See everything your teams could deliver.
Then choose.

One simulation engine to decide what your teams can genuinely deliver: the Quarter Plan every 90 days, the multi-year scenario for budgets. Every decision has a price — measure it: saying yes consumes your teams' capacity, saying no pushes back the gains you expect.

Book a demoSee the quarterly capacity trade-off

Already adopted by 100+ CIOs of mid-market companies and large groups

Kiabi · Valrhona · Leroy Merlin

ISO 27001

Next quarter

your first capacity trade-off, not in 18 months.

Painless setup

you send us your files, we deliver the portfolio.

Free exit at 3 months

if the ritual does not take, you walk away at no cost.

A third more projects delivered

with informed trade-offs.

15% of capacity recovered

your teams will thank you.

80% fewer meetings

teams aligned asynchronously.

Your big projects are not the problem. Everything else is.

When you rank projects by the workload they consume, the same profile always appears: a handful of big projects everyone watches, then a long tail of small projects nobody mentions in committee. Yet that tail, added up, accounts for more than half of your teams' total workload. That is where your capacity goes, without anyone ever deciding it.

  1. 1

    The long tail (26 small projects)

    52%

  2. 2

    The biggest project

    14%

  3. 3

    2nd biggest project

    11%

  4. 4

    3rd biggest project

    9%

  5. 5

    4th biggest project

    8%

  6. 6

    5th biggest project

    6%

Capacity scenarios make that tail visible and decidable. The question is no longer only “this big project, do we do it?”, but “out of this pile of small projects, which ones genuinely deserve the capacity they consume?”. It is by deciding on the tail that you free the most capacity.

The real ROI is not in task tracking. It is in the portfolio trade-off.

Tracking each person's tasks in detail has its uses: teams organize themselves, projects move, and task management tools do that job very well. But let us be clear about the orders of magnitude: optimizing the delivery of one project gains you a few percent on that project.

The gain is of an entirely different scale when people stop working on too many projects at once, and on the wrong ones. There, you do not recover a few percent: you free up half a capacity scattered across the long tail, and you reinvest it in what genuinely creates value. Micro-tracking optimizes a project; capacity trade-offs decide which projects deserve to exist. The second ROI is in no way comparable to the first.

Without capacity, a trade-off is just an opinion.

Everyone holds prioritization committees.

Almost nobody brings the one piece of data that makes the decision possible: what the teams can actually do. Without it, priorities pile up, teams climb to 130%, everything slips, nobody can say no, and every yes loses its value. Capacity is not one more view: it is the wall every request has to run into.

The foundation

Net capacity, by team and by quarter.

The classic trap is trying to hold a capacity plan per person and per task: unmanageable and wrong by the following week.

At team level, not person level: each team reports the capacity it can devote to projects (the build). No individual micro-tracking, a macro view close to your reality.
In t-shirt sizes: no need to cost things to the day, an estimate in t-shirt sizes at deliverable level is enough for a useful capacity plan. We aim to be right within plus or minus 10%, not to plan to death.
At the granularity that suits you: quarter, half-year or the length of your PI, you choose the capacity plan's time scale, based on your organization's real rhythm.
The budget as options

Come to the budget with compared futures, not a wish list.

Trajectories side by side: launch X, push back Y, hire Z. Every scenario carries its workload, its cost, its milestones and its expected benefits.
Multi-criteria comparison: capacity consumed, budget, expected value, risks. The choice becomes a choice, not a power struggle.
The steering panel: every move (push back, freeze, staff up, stop) without leaving the view, recalculated instantly.
Sharing in session: the scenario gets presented, discussed and decided in committee. The debate is about the choices, no longer about the figures.
Every 90 days

This is not a once-a-year plan. It is a decision every 90 days.

The chosen scenario becomes the plan: what you decide applies to the Quarter Plan and becomes the quarter's commitment, visible to everyone. Not a document nobody reopens.
Every 90 days, you replay it: reality moved, and so did priorities. You start from the plan in flight, never from a blank page, and you decide again with the same tools.
Pushing a project back is deciding: moved to the next quarter, it frees capacity you can reallocate immediately. The queue gets cleared instead of growing.
Strategy holds because it gets re-decided: four trade-offs a year, dated and justified, beat an annual plan you merely endure. You see what was chosen, when, and what it displaced.
Impact, project by project

Before you push a project back, see what it frees and what it delays.

Pausing a project or moving it a quarter has three consequences at once. AirSaas shows them on the project's own row, before you decide.

The capacity freed: the person-days the project was holding go back to the pool, team by team. Room you can reallocate right away, not a promise for year-end.
The budget that reopens: the committed envelope becomes available again, costed, ready to fund something else in the same scenario.
The gains pushed back: the flip side, said plainly. The expected benefits do not vanish, they slide — with their new date.

Knowing how to say no is what gives the yes its weight.

An urgent request comes in from a business department. Instead of absorbing it, the CIO opens the scenario: here is what this project displaces. The requesting department chooses with its eyes open. IT is no longer the bottleneck: it is the arbiter.

The numbers measured at our customers

130%

the real workload of teams that nobody could see: AirSaas makes it visible before you say yes.

100%

of projects launched with verified capacity, no longer by guesswork.

10 min

to produce a comparable trade-off scenario for the session, against weeks of spreadsheet work.

Before / after the quarterly capacity trade-off

Without AirSaas
1

Priorities pile up with no constraint

2

A trade-off scenario after 3 weeks of spreadsheet work

3

The budget you voted is a frozen document

With AirSaas
1

Every request runs into the capacity wall

2

A scenario generated in 10 minutes, compared in the room

3

The budget you voted is an activated scenario, tracked every quarter

Your teams keep their tools. The data goes up, the decision comes down.

AirSaas connects natively to your execution tools through its marketplace: progress syncs, nobody re-enters anything.

Jira
Asana
Monday
Microsoft Teams
Public API
KIABIVALRHONALEROY MERLINCHIESIINTUISGT SOLUTIONS

“Seeing the real workload of each team changed everything. We no longer launch a project without knowing what it displaces.”

CIO, mid-market manufacturer

100%

of projects launched with verified capacity

Your first capacity trade-off happens next quarter. Not in 18 months.

6 weeks

Rollout with a contracted method: configuration, projects and PMs on board, first review co-facilitated by our teams.

€60 / month / active project

No user licences: everyone gets access to the tool, from the project manager to the ExCom. Stop a pointless project and your bill goes down.

Go/NoGo at 3 months

If the ritual does not take, you walk away at no cost. We take the risk with you.

Frequently asked questions

By team and by quarter, in FTEs or in days, starting from net capacity. Our guide sets out the method; the rollout installs it in 6 weeks.

Team-quarter granularity is enough to decide. Detailed individual time tracking stays in your team tools: confusing the two is the classic mistake that kills adoption.

The Quarter Plan is a lighter version of PI Planning, stripped of the SAFe jargon and fitted to mid-market companies and organizations that are not fully agile. You keep the best of it (the quarterly rhythm, the demand/capacity alignment, the teams' commitment) without imposing the whole SAFe framework.

They will be, at first. The quarterly rhythm corrects that fast: each cycle compares the estimate with reality and sharpens the next one. An approximate, living capacity plan beats a perfect, dead one.

No, quite the opposite. An estimate in t-shirt sizes at deliverable and team level is enough. We aim to be right within plus or minus 10%. Planning to death, task by task and person by person, is precisely what we avoid: it is unmanageable and wrong by the following week.

Yes. The Quarter Plan is a lighter version of PI Planning, fitted to organizations that are not fully agile. You keep the quarterly rhythm and the demand/capacity alignment, without imposing the SAFe framework.

A team is a group with homogeneous skills. Each one reports the capacity it can devote to the build over the period, and projects consume that capacity. That is what makes the trade-off concrete: saying yes to a project means seeing what it takes away from another.

By showing the bottleneck teams in black and white, you make the need for reinforcement objective: it is no longer a feeling, it is a costed scenario proving that at constant capacity, some projects will not fit.

See what AirSaas would change for you.

A 30-minute demo on your own context. We show you the ritual, you judge.

Book a demo