ISO 27001Next quarter
your first capacity trade-off, not in 18 months.
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 annual scenario for the budget, and the impact of every move. Saying yes to a project means seeing what it displaces, and freeing capacity to get the priority projects over the line.
Already adopted by 100+ CIOs of mid-market companies and large groups
Kiabi · Valrhona · Leroy Merlin
Visual coming soon · Product screenshot
The full scenario view, two scenarios side by side, one team in red. Realistic data: named projects, amounts in euros.
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.
1/3
more projects delivered
15%
of capacity recovered
80%
fewer meetings
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
The long tail (26 small projects)
52%
2
The biggest project
14%
3
2nd biggest project
11%
4
3rd biggest project
9%
5
4th biggest project
8%
6
5th biggest project
6%
Share of the workload consumed, projects ranked from largest to smallest. The long tail — a multitude of small projects — accounts for more than 50% of the total workload.
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.
Visual coming soon · Diagram / illustration
Diagram of demand, the capacity wall, the trade-off. Illustration to create (design, brand style, one idea).
Visual coming soon · Product GIF
The heatmap as a GIF with a live recalculation. 6-8 s, one interaction, clean loop.
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. AirSaas takes the opposite stance — the one that works in the field.
→ 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.
Every 90 days
The entire portfolio gets reviewed. And there is a record of it.
The trade-off view: every project against the quarter's capacity, its progress and its expected benefits. Continue, stop, postpone.
Decisions on the record: dated, justified, kept in history. Dead projects do not survive the quarter.
Reallocation in the session: the capacity freed by a stop appears immediately, ready to be reassigned to the priorities.
The committed roadmap: what is decided becomes the commitment for the quarter, visible to everyone, reopened next quarter against reality.
Visual coming soon · Product screenshot
The Quarter Plan session, one project stopped, the capacity reallocated. Realistic data: named projects, amounts in euros.
Visual coming soon · Product screenshot
Two annual trajectories compared. Realistic data: named projects, amounts in euros.
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.
The year in hand
The budget you voted is no longer a document. It is an activated scenario.
The chosen scenario becomes the plan: tracked quarter after quarter in the Quarter Plan, with gaps visible from April.
Continuous landing point: budget vs actuals, projected to year end, at any moment.
Re-simulation during the year: reality shifts, you make the trade-off again with the same tools you used at budget time, with your eyes open.
The finance reading: costs by scenario and by program, exportable to your consolidation tools.
Visual coming soon · Diagram / illustration
The budget vs actuals curve with the quarterly trade-off points. Illustration to create (design, brand style, one idea).
Visual coming soon · Product GIF
GIF of the generated scenario. 6-8 s, one interaction, clean loop.
The accelerator
A trade-off scenario in 10 minutes. Instead of 3 weeks.
You arrange the projects and see the impact on each team live, until you find the scenario every team is able to see through.
→ Include, exclude, move
Add a project, take one out, push it back a quarter: team workload recalculates instantly. You see straight away where it jams.
→ The scenario everyone can hold
In the room, you look for the realistic combination. What gets approved at the start of the quarter can genuinely be done within it.
→ The trend across the year
Project several quarters to see the bottleneck quarters coming, and anticipate instead of absorbing.
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.