Project Scheduling Software

Your scheduling problem isn't inside one project

Ask most companies to schedule a single project and they can do it: lay out the tasks, put dates on them, done. The scheduling actually goes wrong at the level above that: the senior designer is booked on the launch, the client redesign, and someone's onboarding, all in the same week, because the three project owners scheduled against her time independently and none of them could see the other two commitments.

That's not a task-ordering problem, it's a visibility problem. Every project's schedule looks reasonable in isolation. It's only once you overlay all of them against the actual people doing the work that you find out the schedule was never realistic to begin with. By the time that shows up, it's usually as a missed date rather than as a warning.

A tool that schedules one project at a time can't fix this, no matter how good its own timeline view is, because the conflict lives in the gap between tools: one project's plan simply has no way to see another project's claim on the same person. Fixing it means the underlying capacity data has to live in one place that every project's schedule draws from, which is a different problem from making any single project's timeline prettier.

ShipSprint schedules against the company's real, shared capacity rather than letting each project plan in its own bubble, so the conflict is visible when the schedule is set, not when someone finally admits they're underwater.

The person, not the project, is the scheduling constraint

Most scheduling tools are built around the project: lay out its tasks, set its dates, watch its timeline. That works fine right up until a person is on more than one project, which in any company past a handful of people is true almost immediately. The project-level view has no way to see that its schedule depends on someone who is already fully booked two projects over.

ShipSprint's boards and time logs sit at the level of the person and the team, not just the individual project, so capacity is a shared fact rather than something each project owner has to separately guess at. When a project lead is sequencing next sprint's work, the WIP limits and the "my day" view reflect what that person is actually carrying across everything they're on, not just the slice visible from this one board.

That's also why the delivery forecast is worth trusting more than a hand-built schedule: it's derived from the team's measured throughput given everything they're actually doing, not from an estimate made before the rest of their week was accounted for.

It also changes who needs to be in the room when a schedule gets set. A hand-built schedule usually requires the project owner to separately go ask around about who's free, because that information isn't anywhere a single person can just look it up. When capacity is visible on the board itself, that conversation gets shorter. The constraint is already in front of both people before the negotiation over priority even starts.

When two projects both need the same person this week

The scheduling conflict that actually costs a company money isn't usually a task running long. It's two project owners each scheduling the same specialist for the same week, neither aware of the other's plan, because their schedules live in two different tools, two different spreadsheets, or two different mental models of who's "available." The person in the middle either quietly works nights to cover both, or one project slips and nobody can say exactly why until the retro.

ShipSprint doesn't solve this by adding a resourcing algorithm that assigns people automatically. That tends to produce technically balanced schedules that ignore context a human would catch immediately. It solves it by making the conflict visible to both project owners before either commits: WIP limits and current assignments are the same data across every board that person appears on, so scheduling them into a fourth thing shows up as pressure on their existing load, not as a fresh, apparently-empty calendar slot.

This is a smaller intervention than it sounds, and that's deliberate. The two project owners still have the conversation about who gets the specialist this week, but they're having it with the same facts in front of both of them, instead of discovering the overlap after one schedule has already slipped. That's the part teams on ShipSprint actually notice: fewer surprised "wait, you had her too?" moments.

Scheduling around leave, notice periods and the calendar you actually have

A schedule built on an idealised calendar (everyone working full weeks, nobody on leave, no notice periods) is wrong by construction, and it's wrong in the same direction every time: optimistic. Real calendars have festival leave, sick days, someone serving a notice period, and a new hire who won't be productive for their first few weeks. None of that shows up in a schedule built from task estimates alone.

Because ShipSprint's scorecards are leave-adjusted and hours are logged against real days worked, the picture the forecast draws on already accounts for the calendar people actually have rather than the one a schedule assumes. A team that's short two people to festival leave in October shows a slower measured velocity through that period, and the forecast reflects it automatically, so nobody has to remember to manually discount the schedule for a holiday that was on the calendar the whole time.

Contractors, client work, and the schedules that live outside a single team

Agencies and consultancies have a version of this problem that's even sharper: the same senior person is billable across three client engagements in the same week, and every hour scheduled against one client is an hour that isn't available for another. Get that wrong and either a deliverable slips or someone quietly works an unsustainable week to cover the gap. The client never sees the internal scramble, they just see whether the date held.

Because time is logged against the specific task and project it belongs to, and boards enforce WIP limits per column rather than per person globally, a schedule built across several client boards still respects the fact that the specialist's week has a fixed number of hours in it, no matter how many client boards are asking for a slice of it. The forecast for each client engagement reflects that shared constraint automatically, rather than each engagement being scheduled as if that person had a full week free.

Where this matters most is at the proposal stage, well before anyone signs anything: knowing whether a delivery date is actually achievable against the team's current commitments, not just against an idealised availability that assumes nobody else has a claim on the same people.

What it costs

• Free covers up to 5 users and 2 projects, permanently: enough to see whether shared-capacity scheduling actually catches the conflicts your current process misses.
• Team is ₹299 per user per month (₹2,899 per year), up to 40 users, with GitHub sync included for engineering teams.
• Business is ₹599 per user per month (₹6,499 per year) and adds the velocity-based forecasts and the owner command center that shows every team's schedule in one place.
• Every paid plan starts with a 14-day full-access trial on Business, sample project preloaded, no card required. Full detail on the pricing page.