Project Management Software for Biotechnology

The experiment doesn't know the funding round has a date

Biotech R&D has a structural mismatch that most project tools ignore: the research itself is genuinely uncertain (an assay might work on the third attempt or the tenth, a compound might clear a screen or not) while the funding attached to it runs on a schedule that doesn't care. A milestone tied to a Series B tranche or a grant renewal arrives on its date regardless of what the science decided to do that quarter.

Standard project tools force a choice that doesn't fit: treat the programme like a fixed-scope engineering project with a date that's mostly fiction, or abandon structure entirely and lose the ability to tell investors or a board anything credible about progress. Neither is honest, and both make the actual reporting conversation harder than it needs to be.

ShipSprint's forecasts are built from measured pace rather than a plan drawn up on day one, which suits research better than a fixed Gantt chart does. The forecast adapts as the team's real throughput becomes clear, rather than insisting on an estimate made before anyone had run a single experiment. It won't tell you whether the science will work. It will tell you, honestly, whether the programme's current pace is converging on the funding milestone or drifting from it.

A funding cycle, walked through

Right after a raise closes, the programme lead breaks the funded plan into workstreams, assay development, a screening campaign, a regulatory pre-submission track, each on its own board, staffed against the team that actually exists rather than the hypothetical team in the pitch deck.

A few months in, an experiment doesn't work the way anyone expected, and the programme genuinely has to pivot: a new assay approach, a different target. That pivot gets written up as a wiki page next to the affected board, with the reasoning intact, so when a board member asks "why did the approach change" eight months later, the answer isn't reconstructed from someone's memory of a meeting.

As the next funding milestone approaches, the forecast, by now built from real sprint history rather than day-one guesswork, gives the programme lead an honest read on whether the milestone will land on time. That's early enough to have a candid conversation with the board about a timeline adjustment rather than discovering the gap during the milestone review itself, in front of the people deciding on the next tranche.

What this is not

ShipSprint has no LIMS integration and does not connect to lab instruments or sample-tracking systems; that data stays in whatever LIMS or ELN the lab already runs. It also carries no GxP validation and makes no claim of one; if a workflow requires a validated system under GxP, this is not that system, and it should not be represented as one in any internal or regulatory documentation.

What it is: a place to plan and track the programme-management layer around the science, milestones, cross-functional coordination, funder and board reporting, sitting alongside your lab systems rather than replacing or validating any part of them.

If a workflow needs to move data between the programme-management layer and a LIMS or ELN, that has to happen manually or through whatever integration those systems support on their own end. ShipSprint doesn't attempt to bridge that gap, and pretending otherwise would be the wrong kind of shortcut for regulated lab data.

Progress on the programme, not hours at the bench

No screenshots, no keystroke logging, no activity tracking. Research doesn't happen on a predictable clock, and a system that judged researchers on visible busyness would be measuring the wrong thing entirely. What's recorded is delivered milestones and logged hours, nothing about how the time was spent getting there.

Scorecards are visible to the person they describe and adjusted for leave, which matters for teams where a researcher might be heads-down on one experiment for two weeks and then genuinely idle waiting on results. Neither pattern should look like a problem in a report.

One subscription for research and the functions around it

A biotech programme rarely runs on research alone: there's HR hiring specialised staff, regulatory affairs preparing filings, and operations managing vendor and reagent logistics. Each gets its own templates in one subscription, so the whole programme is visible from the same command center rather than fragmented across four departmental tools.

ShipSprint also connects to Claude and ChatGPT, so a programme lead can ask which milestone is trending off pace toward the next funding tranche in plain language, without exporting data first.

What it costs

Runway is the defining constraint for most funded research programmes, so software spend has to justify itself against months of burn saved, not against a feature checklist.

• Free covers 5 users and 2 projects, forever, realistic for an early-stage team running one or two research programmes before a larger round. Team is ₹299/user/month or ₹2,899/user/year for up to 40 users; Business is ₹599/user/month or ₹6,499/year with forecasts, scorecards and the owner command center.
• Billing is per seat in rupees with GST-compliant invoices, and annual billing is available.
• Every paid plan opens with a 14-day full-access trial on Business, sample project preloaded, no card required, enough to see how the forecast behaves against a few real sprints of programme work.

Starting with one programme

A multi-programme research organisation doesn't need to migrate everything at once. A common starting point is the single programme closest to its next funding milestone, where an early honest read on pace matters most, run through a handful of sprints before deciding whether the rest of the portfolio follows.

Because Free covers up to 5 users and 2 projects indefinitely, an early-stage team with one or two active programmes can genuinely operate there long-term rather than treating it as a time-limited trial that forces a decision before the science has told them anything.