Jira tracks your issues. But who's tracking your plan? Discover why the gap between issue management and project planning costs teams weeks of productivity — and how to close it.
Jira is the most widely used project management tool in software development. It excels at what it was built for: tracking individual issues through workflows, managing backlogs, and providing team-level visibility into work items. But there is a persistent gap between tracking issues and planning a project.
Every sprint planning session, project managers face the same questions: Can we actually deliver this by the deadline? Who has room for more work? Is scope growing faster than we can deliver? These questions require synthesizing data that lives in Jira but isn't surfaced by Jira. The result: spreadsheets, guesswork, and late surprises.
This paper examines the structural gap between issue tracking and project planning, the cost of compensating with manual processes, and the requirements for a true planning layer that works with Jira rather than alongside it.
Jira is excellent at the what — what issues exist, what status they're in, who's assigned, what changed. It's the system of record for work items across thousands of organizations.
But Jira doesn't answer the whether. It doesn't tell you whether your plan is feasible, whether your team has enough capacity, whether scope is growing faster than progress, or whether a deadline is realistic. These are planning questions, and Jira is not a planning tool.
Consider the five questions every project manager asks regularly:
Jira provides the raw data to answer all five. But it provides none of the analysis. The data sits in individual issue fields — story points, remaining estimates, assignees, due dates, time logged — without being synthesized into actionable planning insights.
The cost of this gap is measured in missed deadlines, burned-out team members, and stakeholder meetings where the honest answer is "I think we're on track, but I'm not sure." When planning depends on tribal knowledge and ad-hoc calculations, surprises are inevitable.
In the absence of integrated planning tools, teams compensate. The most common compensation mechanism is the spreadsheet.
Excel capacity trackers. Google Sheets burndown charts. Manual velocity calculations copied from Jira reports. Ad-hoc scripts that pull data from the Jira API and dump it into a dashboard. Every team has their version, and every version shares the same fundamental problems:
We call this the "spreadsheet tax" — the ongoing cost in time, accuracy, and confidence that teams pay because their issue tracker doesn't do planning. Sprint planning meetings that should take 30 minutes take 2-3 hours because half the time is spent establishing baseline facts that should be instantly available: How much capacity do we have? What's our velocity? Who's on PTO? Which stories are blocked?
The spreadsheet tax compounds over time. Each sprint adds more data to reconcile. Each team member change requires formula updates. Each stakeholder meeting requires a fresh export. And the underlying question — "Are we going to make it?" — never gets a confident answer.
If a true planning layer existed on top of Jira, what would it need to provide? Based on the five unanswered questions and the shortcomings of manual processes, here are the essential capabilities:
The most critical planning question is whether the plan is achievable. A planning layer should compare total capacity against total demand over time, account for team availability and utilization rates, and produce a clear forecast: will the work be done by the target date? If not, when will it actually finish? This analysis should update automatically as issues change, not require a manual recalculation.
Capacity isn't just "how many people times how many hours." Real capacity planning accounts for individual working hours, utilization percentages, scheduled time off, company holidays, and current workload. It produces per-person visibility: who is overloaded, who is optimally loaded, who has room for more work. This information should be available at a glance, not buried in a calculation.
Scope creep is the silent project killer. A planning layer should track total scope over time and surface exactly when and how scope grows. Not just "scope increased" — but "14 points were added in Week 3, here are the specific issues." This turns scope management from a retrospective exercise ("we missed the deadline because scope grew") into a proactive one ("scope grew 12% this week, here's what was added").
When sprints are overloaded and work needs to be redistributed, the process should be intelligent. Auto-leveling should respect dependencies (don't schedule a child before its parent), honor due dates, stay within capacity limits, and offer multiple strategies (by priority, by size, by deadline). And it should be reversible — one click to undo if the result doesn't look right.
Issues that need attention shouldn't wait to be discovered. A centralized alert system should surface overdue items, dependency violations, missing estimates, missing dates, and data inconsistencies (like "Done" issues with remaining work). These categories should be scannable at a glance before every sprint planning session.
Individual sprint data tells part of the story. Trends tell the rest. Which issues keep getting re-estimated? Which due dates keep slipping? Is velocity improving or declining? Historical pattern analysis helps teams improve their estimation and planning processes over time.
Modern planning should leverage AI for scenario analysis ("What if we add 15 more points?"), risk identification ("Which issues are likely blockers?"), and routine generation (daily standups, sprint retrospectives, refinement checks). AI should work on the team's actual data, not generic templates.
Project Commander is a Jira Cloud app that provides the planning layer described above. Built on Atlassian Forge for native integration, it reads existing Jira data and synthesizes it into seven analysis tabs that directly answer the five planning questions.
Nine stat cards covering demand, capacity, buffer, time spent, completion %, work ratio, and efficiency. A capacity-vs-demand chart with target date forecasting shows exactly when the project will finish. Filter by period (weekly, monthly, quarterly) or by team member.
Per-person table showing hours/week, utilization, time off, net available hours, current demand, and a status badge (OVERLOADED, OPTIMAL, AVAILABLE, UNDERLOADED). Visual calendar for time off management. Company holiday tracking.
Burndown chart showing total scope vs. completed work over time. Per-assignee burndown lines for individual contributions. Weekly breakdown table showing exactly what was added and burned each period, with expandable issue details.
Full sprint planning with drag-and-drop, capacity indicators, and auto-leveling. Three auto-level strategies (priority, size, due date) with undo/accept workflow. Velocity tracking with historical performance data.
Six alert categories: Done with remaining work, overdue issues, dependency conflicts, child-after-parent violations, missing dates, and missing estimates. Collapsible sections with direct links to Jira issues.
Track due date delays and estimate changes across the project. See which issues are repeatedly rescheduled or re-estimated. Expand any issue to view its full change history.
Six AI agents: What-If scenario analysis, scope creep monitoring, blocker prediction, standup summarizer, retrospective insights, and refinement assistant. All powered by your actual project data.
Works with Sprint Mode or Kanban (no sprints). Supports story points or time estimates (hours/days). Deploys as a full-page app or dashboard gadget.
The key differentiator is integration depth. Project Commander doesn't ask teams to enter data twice or maintain a parallel system. It reads the story points, remaining estimates, assignees, due dates, sprint assignments, time logged, and dependencies that already exist in Jira — and turns them into planning intelligence.
Feasibility analysis, for example, runs entirely on the client side using cached issue data. When a user switches to the Feasibility tab, the analysis is instant — no waiting for a backend calculation. The nine stat cards update as issues change in Jira, and the capacity-vs-demand chart shows the daily reality of the project timeline.
The difference between planning with and without a dedicated layer is stark. Here's how common project management activities change:
| Activity | Without Planning Layer | With Project Commander |
|---|---|---|
| Sprint planning | 2-3 hours of manual capacity checks and estimation debates | 30 minutes — capacity, velocity, and workload data is already visible |
| Stakeholder updates | "I think we're on track" | "Feasibility is 87% with a 12-point buffer. Forecast shows March 15 delivery." |
| Scope management | Discovered at sprint end or project deadline | Detected in real time — weekly breakdown shows exactly what was added |
| Workload balancing | Noticed during burnout conversations | Flagged immediately with OVERLOADED/AVAILABLE status badges |
| Risk management | Reactive — problems surfaced after impact | Proactive — alerts, dependency checks, and AI blocker prediction |
| Estimation accuracy | No feedback loop — same estimation mistakes repeated | Trends tab shows which estimates drift and by how much |
The compound effect of these improvements is significant. When planning is data-driven rather than intuition-driven, teams make better commitments, catch problems earlier, and spend less time in meetings establishing facts that should be self-evident.
Consider the cascade effect of a single improvement: when capacity is visible at the person level, overloads are caught before sprint start. Fewer overloads mean fewer mid-sprint scope changes. Fewer scope changes mean more predictable velocity. More predictable velocity means more accurate forecasts. More accurate forecasts mean better stakeholder trust. This virtuous cycle starts with visibility that doesn't exist in Jira alone.
Project Commander is built on Atlassian Forge, the official platform for Jira Cloud apps. This means native integration — no external servers, no data export, no OAuth configuration. The app runs within Jira's security sandbox and accesses issue data through Forge's built-in APIs.
The architecture reflects a core philosophy: work with the data teams already maintain. If a team uses story points, Project Commander uses story points. If they use time estimates in hours, it uses hours. If they run sprints, it provides sprint planning. If they use Kanban, it works without sprints. No parallel data entry. No additional workflow overhead.
Project Commander installs from the Atlassian Marketplace and requires minimal configuration to start delivering value:
Most teams see value within minutes of installation. A JQL filter is all it takes to get feasibility analysis, scope tracking, alerts, and trend data. Sprint planning and capacity features layer on as teams are ready for deeper integration.
Stop planning in spreadsheets. Start planning with your Jira data.
Visit projectcommander.app Take the Tutorial