Enterprise Agile Planning: How to Coordinate Waterfall Infrastructure and Agile Sprints

In most large organizations, the question is never "waterfall or agile?" The real question is how to run both at once without losing visibility. Infrastructure programs, such as cloud migrations, data-center builds and network upgrades, depend on sequential milestones, fixed procurement cycles and stage-gate governance. Application teams iterate in 2-week sprints, reprioritize backlogs continuously and ship increments. Enterprise agile planning (EAP) platforms are the coordination layer between these 2 worlds. They let each side keep the methodology that fits its work while connecting strategy, budgets, dependencies and capacity in a single view. Planisware is one such platform. This article explores hybrid program management challenges, the platform capabilities that matter most and the practices that make the investment pay off.

Why Hybrid Programs Lose Visibility

Picture a single enterprise program. A network team provisions infrastructure on a 12-month Gantt chart, while 3 application squads plan their next sprint. The infrastructure side measures progress in milestone completions and earned value. The application side tracks velocity and burndown. This coexistence is not an edge case. According to the Project Management Institute (PMI) 15th Pulse of the Profession survey, hybrid adoption grew 57.5% between 2020 and 2023, rising from 20% to 31.5% of organizations. Digital.ai's 18th State of Agile Report, published in October 2025, found that 74% of respondents now use a hybrid, blended or homegrown approach.

Hybrid program management coordinates initiatives that use different delivery methods, typically waterfall for infrastructure and agile for software, within a shared portfolio, budget and timeline. An enterprise agile planning platform links milestones, sprints, budgets and capacity in one view, so teams keep their methodology while leaders keep visibility.

Done well, hybrid program management preserves the predictability infrastructure demands and the adaptability application development requires. Done poorly, it produces 2 parallel programs that happen to share a budget.

The pain points surface quickly when these worlds collide. Waterfall teams emphasize upfront planning and detailed documentation. They track progress with Gantt charts and Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) charts. Agile teams work from backlogs and sprint boards. Cadences are misaligned: infrastructure plans in months, while applications plan in weeks. Dependencies become invisible because they live in different tools. Status reporting is duplicated or contradictory. Resource conflicts emerge when a shared database engineer is committed to a waterfall phase and expected in a sprint at the same time. Single-methodology tools cannot close these governance gaps.

The table below compares how waterfall and agile teams plan, fund, report and manage change.

These differences create a coordination gap that an enterprise agile planning platform is built to close.

5 Capabilities That Keep Waterfall and Agile in Sync

EAP tools span 3 layers. Strategy and portfolio sits at the top. Program and Program Increment (PI) planning forms the middle layer. Sprint-level execution sits at the base. This vertical reach lets leaders trace iteration work back to roadmaps, budgets and objectives. Teams keep the cadence and tooling they prefer. EAP tools help scale agile and deliver business outcomes faster because they connect these layers rather than replacing them.

The table below summarizes the 5 non-negotiable capability pillars for any credible hybrid-coordination platform.

Bi-directional integration with team-level tools

Forcing every team onto a single user interface (UI) is counterproductive. Infrastructure engineers need their Gantt charts, and developers need their sprint boards. The platform must integrate bi-directionally with team-level tools such as Jira, Azure DevOps and GitLab. Sprint changes then flow to portfolio forecasts and vice versa, which avoids dual entry and stale plans. CB Insights treats integration with Jira, Azure DevOps and GitLab as a core EAP capability, not an afterthought.

Planisware federates execution in team-level tools while consolidating strategic epics, budgets and capacity data in the EAP layer. Application teams continue working in the tools they know. Portfolio leaders get a unified view without chasing updates across systems.

Key integration touchpoints start with agile delivery tools and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems for budget actuals. Information technology service management (ITSM) platforms supply infrastructure change records. Human resources (HR) and identity systems supply resource availability. Enterprise architecture repositories add technical dependency context.

PI and dependency planning across methodologies

A Program Increment is a timebox that typically spans 8 to 12 weeks. PI planning is the event that opens it. During PI planning, agile teams align on shared objectives, identify cross-team dependencies and commit to deliverables. CB Insights lists PI or big-room planning as a core EAP capability. The platform should provide interactive planning boards, Agile Release Train (ART) backlogs and dependency matrices that make cross-team relationships explicit.

In a hybrid environment, dependency mapping connects waterfall milestones to sprint commitments. Typical examples are an infrastructure provisioning date or a security certification deadline. Application teams can see when a platform dependency will be resolved and plan their backlogs accordingly.

The linkage flow is straightforward. A waterfall milestone such as "Production environment available" becomes a dependency for a program feature such as "Deploy payment service." That feature breaks down into sprint stories assigned to specific teams. When the milestone date shifts, the platform propagates the impact through the dependency chain to the sprint backlog. Teams see the change automatically rather than through a chain of emails.

Resource and capacity modeling that prevents double-booking

EAP platforms manage dependency and capacity planning across portfolios. They provide role-based capacity views, demand-versus-supply analysis and allocation tracking. That tracking covers infrastructure, development, security and operations teams. For hybrid environments, the true differentiator is scenario modeling.

Suppose leaders reallocate a shared database engineer from a waterfall phase to an agile sprint for 2 iterations. Does the infrastructure timeline slip? Does the application team accelerate enough to justify the trade-off? What-if simulations answer these questions before leaders commit, not after schedules break.

Planisware links capacity planning to real resource constraints. This prevents double-booking of scarce roles across waterfall and agile workstreams. Planisware also strengthens accountability by tying every role assignment to available capacity. Planisware research notes that 86% of organizations operate at least 1 Project Management Office (PMO). Yet only 37% achieve complete portfolio visibility. The gap between resource plans and reality is where hybrid programs are most exposed.

Zebra Technologies shows what accurate capacity data makes possible. The company manages about 300 contractors each month and was shifting toward Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) delivery models. After connecting Planisware to its human capital management system, Zebra cut manual resource-management effort by 33%.

Static quarterly resource plans fail in hybrid environments. Agile velocity data arrives every 2 weeks. Infrastructure constraints shift as procurement and construction timelines evolve. Capacity plans must therefore be living documents. Configure automated alerts for resource over-allocation, milestone slippage beyond a defined threshold and capacity shortfalls in upcoming PIs. Planisware's capacity modeling connects to real-time sprint data through integrations. Resource forecasts stay current without manual updates. When a shared specialist approaches over-allocation, the alert fires before the conflict becomes a blocker.

Financial controls for 2 funding models

Hybrid programs must manage 2 funding models at once. Infrastructure projects run on traditional project budgets with stage-gate approvals. The sequence is to define scope, estimate cost, secure funding, execute and close. Agile streams increasingly adopt incremental or product-based investment. Funding flows to value streams rather than projects, and scope changes with each iteration.

The EAP platform must accommodate both models simultaneously. Enterprise agile planning tools link sprints to budgets, roadmaps and strategy. They provide lean budgeting, plan-versus-actual cost comparisons and portfolio key performance indicators (KPIs).

The EAP layer normalizes both models into a single portfolio financial view. Executives can then compare infrastructure and application investments without translating between methodologies.

Traceability that satisfies auditors

When waterfall deliverables intersect with agile outputs, traceability becomes a compliance requirement. This is especially true in aerospace, automotive, banking and healthcare. Auditors need to trace a regulatory requirement through design documentation, test evidence and deployment records. That need holds whether teams managed the work on a Gantt chart or a sprint board.

Needed capabilities start with configurable approval workflows and audit trails that span both methodologies. Risk and issue registers should link to specific work items. Roll-up reporting should cover programs using different delivery models. Centralized documentation removes the manual reconciliation auditors currently require when deliverables span methodologies. That reconciliation is time-consuming and error-prone. These features also support granular data control for audit and regulatory needs.

Hybrid teams typically set scope boundaries, budget and compliance gates up front. They then use short cycles to adjust details as learning occurs. PMI describes this shift as a fit-for-purpose approach rather than a single framework applied everywhere. The EAP platform supports this pattern by enforcing governance at the portfolio level while giving teams flexibility at the execution level.

How Enterprise Agile Planning Connects Strategy to Sprints

Features alone do not solve hybrid coordination. The operational model determines whether the investment delivers value. That model defines how the platform connects strategic decisions to sprint-level work in practice. Research from Auckland University of Technology frames agile portfolio management (APM) at scale as a portfolio coordination problem, not just a team-level issue. The EAP layer is the connective tissue that makes this coordination possible.

Trace every sprint back to strategy

Enterprise agile planning rests on a 3-layer model. The top layer covers strategy and portfolio. The middle layer covers programs and ARTs. The base layer covers sprint execution. Every sprint backlog item should trace back to a portfolio epic, a funded initiative and a strategic objective. Without this vertical traceability, teams may deliver working software that does not advance organizational goals. Leaders may also fund initiatives that do not produce measurable outcomes.

Planisware connects strategic roadmaps with agile execution. The chain from strategic objective to portfolio epic, program feature and sprint story stays visible at every level. This traceability is more than a governance exercise. It is how organizations ensure that every sprint contributes to outcomes that matter.

The vertical flow works like this:

1. Strategic objective: for example, "Reduce customer onboarding time by 40%"
2. Portfolio epic: for example, "Automate identity verification"
3. Program feature: for example, "Integrate third-party Know Your Customer (KYC) service"
4. Sprint story: for example, "Build application programming interface (API) adapter for KYC provider"

Infrastructure work such as provisioning the secure API gateway may follow waterfall. In that case, the EAP platform links the milestone to the program feature. The application team then knows exactly when the dependency will be resolved.

Surface cross-team dependencies before they block sprints

The dependency challenge in hybrid environments is specific and predictable. Infrastructure teams commit to milestone dates months in advance, while application teams plan 2 weeks at a time. When a server provisioning milestone slips by 3 weeks, multiple sprint plans break. The ripple effects often stay invisible until a sprint review reveals that teams are blocked.

EAP platforms surface these dependencies through cross-project dependency mapping, milestone links, impact alerts and roadmap rollups. Consider a cloud migration program where the network team follows waterfall and 3 application squads run sprints. The network team's firewall-rule milestone is due in week 6. Sprint 4 backlogs for 2 of the squads include items that depend on it. When the milestone slips to week 9, the EAP platform flags the impact on both squads' sprint plans automatically. Product owners gain time to reprioritize their backlogs instead of discovering the blocker mid-sprint.

This proactive dependency management distinguishes enterprise-grade coordination from ad hoc status meetings and spreadsheet tracking. Portfolio reviews should track timing and dependencies alongside funding, resource demand and strategic role. The EAP platform is where that tracking lives.

Roadmaps make these dependencies visible at a glance. EAP tools often include roadmapping and Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) as core capabilities. The roadmap must overlay waterfall Gantt milestones with agile PI boundaries and sprint cadences. Leaders then get a single timeline view that spans both methodologies.

Planisware's roadmap view lets leaders see infrastructure stage-gate dates alongside application release trains, spotting conflicts before they become blockers. Imagine a roadmap with 2 swim lanes. The first shows waterfall phases (requirements, design, build, test and deploy) with milestone diamonds at each gate. The second shows agile PIs with sprint increments and planned releases. Where a waterfall milestone meets an agile release boundary, the dependency becomes visible and actionable.

This unified view is especially valuable during quarterly planning. That is when portfolio leaders decide which initiatives to fund, accelerate or pause. Without it, they decide on incomplete information, and conflicts surface only when teams collide in execution.

Model schedule variability with scenario planning

Scenario planning in portfolio management means modeling alternative resource allocations, timelines and funding distributions to evaluate trade-offs before committing. In hybrid environments, it is the decision-support layer that keeps programs on track when reality diverges from the plan.

What-if simulations let leaders answer pointed questions. If the data-center build slips by 4 weeks, which application releases are affected? Can developers move to other value streams in the interim? If 2 engineers leave the application team to accelerate the security certification, does the overall portfolio timeline improve?

This capability matters because waterfall schedule certainty is often lower than planned. Procurement delays, regulatory approvals and construction timelines are inherently variable. Agile teams need rapid replanning when their constraints shift. The EAP platform connects these 2 realities so leaders can model the impact and respond proactively.

Operating Practices That Make Hybrid Coordination Work

The operating model surrounding the platform is what makes the technology investment pay off. That model includes the habits, cadences and communication practices teams follow every day. Effective APM governance is better framed as an organizational capability, not just a methodology choice.

Create a single source of truth across teams

The principle is simple: consolidate strategic epics, budgets and portfolio data in the EAP layer while federating execution in team tools. This pattern respects team autonomy while giving portfolio leaders the visibility they need.

Operationally, a single source of truth across hybrid portfolios means a single place where portfolio status, financial actuals, resource utilization and risk exposure stay current. That holds whether teams track the underlying work in a Gantt chart or a sprint board. When an infrastructure program manager updates a milestone in a preferred tool, the change flows to the EAP layer. When an agile team completes a sprint, velocity and burndown data sync automatically. Bi-directional integration removes most duplicate data entry and the manual spreadsheet reconciliation it causes.

Data alone does not align people. The human side of hybrid coordination is often the hardest to get right, and no tool compensates for unclear decision-making. Decisions that bridge agile ceremonies and waterfall gates need clear communication channels and centralized documentation.

Maintain 3 documentation artifacts. Decision logs capture the go/no-go rationale and conditions behind each stage-gate review. Dependency resolution records show how PI planning conflicts were settled. Sprint review summaries tell infrastructure stakeholders what was delivered and what remains blocked.

Confluence is commonly used as a hub for centralized documentation and collaboration. An EAP platform should integrate with such tools to keep documentation connected to the work items it references. The goal is not more documentation. It is documentation that is findable, current and linked to the decisions it supports. A practical step is to assign a named owner to each cross-methodology dependency. That owner closes the loop between the decision log and the affected sprint backlog, so accountability does not fall between teams.

Use PI planning to synchronize cadences

PI planning events serve as the synchronization point between waterfall milestones and agile sprints. These events surface dependencies and schedule waterfall milestones alongside sprint cadences. They also capture outcomes for portfolio forecasting and change control. Infrastructure program managers should attend to present upcoming milestones, constraint dates and environment availability windows. Agile teams can then plan around them.

A hybrid PI planning session follows a clear flow:

1. Review portfolio objectives: confirm strategic priorities and funding decisions for the upcoming PI.
2. Present the infrastructure milestone timeline: infrastructure leads share upcoming milestones, constraint dates and known risks.
3. Draft agile PI objectives: application squads define what they plan to deliver, informed by infrastructure availability.
4. Identify cross-team dependencies: teams map dependencies between infrastructure milestones and sprint deliverables.
5. Resolve conflicts and adjust: where dependencies conflict, teams negotiate timing, scope or resource adjustments.
6. Commit and publish the integrated plan: teams record the agreed plan in the EAP platform, which links milestones to sprint commitments.

This cadence aligns infrastructure and application teams at least once per PI. Between events, the EAP platform maintains the integrated plan.

How to Choose a Platform That Scales With Hybrid Delivery

Analyst and review sources describe an EAP market focused on scale. SAFe support, integration depth, governance and AI-enabled decision support stand out as key differentiators for hybrid environments. The criteria below help separate tools that check boxes from platforms that support mixed-methodology coordination.

Fit also depends on maturity. Planisware serves organizations across the full range, from turnkey adoption to highly configurable enterprise deployments. It is trusted by approximately 600 of the world's leading organizations. Gartner recognizes Planisware as a Leader in the Magic Quadrant for Adaptive Project Management and Reporting. Planisware is also named a Leader in The Forrester Wave for Strategic Portfolio Management.

A leading utility company illustrates the hybrid case. Its information technology (IT) team ran infrastructure initiatives and applications across SAFe, agile and waterfall methods, using disconnected point solutions. Full portfolio visibility was the primary driver from leadership when it consolidated on Planisware. As its Principal Portfolio Management Lead put it, "Planisware really stood out in their consulting and implementation teams and the way they proposed to come in and implement the products for us because they have experience in both IT and construction."

Integration flexibility and SAFe compatibility

The platform must integrate bi-directionally with the tools teams already use. Check whether integration runs in real time, supports field-level mapping and preserves team-level workflows. A once-daily sync or a summary-only transfer is insufficient for hybrid coordination. Sprint-level changes affect portfolio forecasts too quickly for that.

SAFe compatibility requires ART-level backlogs, PI planning boards, value stream mapping and lean portfolio management constructs. Planisware has been a Scaled Agile Platform partner since 2019 and supports these constructs natively rather than through configuration workarounds. Weigh total cost of ownership and implementation effort alongside features, since strong visibility features can come with a heavy deployment burden.

Depth of resource and scenario modeling

Simple allocation tracking shows who is assigned where. Scenario modeling shows what happens if you shift 3 engineers from the infrastructure phase to the application squad for 2 sprints. The former describes what is, while the latter describes what could be.

Evaluate role-based capacity views, demand-versus-supply analysis, what-if simulations and contingency planning. Planisware provides scenario modeling across multiple agile teams linked to real resource constraints. This prevents overcommitting specialists who are critical to both waterfall phases and agile sprints. Some platforms are built for agile-only environments and model capacity from historical velocity alone. That approach leaves cross-methodology trade-offs unaddressed.

Governance, reporting and hybrid funding

The reporting challenge is structural. Waterfall projects report earned value and milestone completion, while agile teams report velocity and burndown. The platform must convert both into portfolio-level KPIs that executives can compare directly.

Governance capabilities to evaluate include configurable approval workflows, portfolio health indicators, risk registers, issue registers, audit trails, stage gates and roll-up reporting. Look for configurable dashboards that give executives portfolio summaries and financial rollups. The same dashboards should give delivery teams sprint boards and backlog views without excessive administration overhead. Research suggests that effective APM at scale requires 6 governance components working together. They are adaptive steering, institutional architecture, team autonomy, portfolio visibility, stakeholder routines and interdependency management.

Funding support is the final test. The platform should handle traditional project budgets and stage-gate funding alongside incremental funding, product-based investment and changing agile scope. This dual-model support matters most for organizations moving toward product-based funding that still need waterfall governance for infrastructure. Planisware supports both models: stage-gate financial controls for infrastructure programs and lean budgeting for agile value streams.

Sequencing matters as much as structure. Enabling platforms should be funded consistently with downstream applications. Prerequisite milestones should occur early enough that stop decisions do not strand related programs. The EAP platform supports this discipline by making financial links between infrastructure investments and application value streams explicit and auditable. A funding committee reviewing a delayed data-center build, for example, can see which application value streams depend on it. The committee can then protect, rephase or pause those investments together.

Bring Waterfall and Agile Into a Single Portfolio View

Hybrid delivery is here to stay in large organizations. The strongest approach lets infrastructure keep its milestones and application teams keep their sprints. An EAP platform connects both to shared strategy, budgets and capacity. Start with integration, dependency mapping and capacity modeling. Then build the operating cadence around PI planning. To see how Planisware connects waterfall milestones and agile sprints in a single portfolio view, contact our team.

Frequently Asked Questions

What resources can I consult for more information about enterprise agile planning for hybrid programs?

• Agile, Waterfall and Hybrid: why a good PPM tool will manage all three: Explains why one platform should consolidate Agile, waterfall and hybrid projects. This is the basic case for coordinating infrastructure and sprint teams.
• Enterprise PI Planning Software: How Planisware Streamlines Agile Release Trains: Shows how digital PI planning ties train commitments, capacity and funding to portfolio decisions in mixed-method portfolios.
• 10 Proven Techniques for Managing Agile Dependencies Across Teams: Practical methods for spotting and resolving cross-team dependencies before a slipped milestone breaks sprint plans.
• The 2026 Authoritative Guide to Agile Resource and Capacity Management Platforms: How capacity models prevent overcommitment of shared specialists who work across waterfall phases and sprints.
• The Definitive Guide to Scalable Agile Portfolio Management: Covers lean budgeting, value streams and scaling frameworks. This is the portfolio layer that hybrid programs report into.
• How to Improve Agile Delivery Predictability in the Enterprise: Explains why method-agnostic governance keeps agile and waterfall work in one hybrid portfolio predictable.
• Transparent Agile Portfolio Governance and Management Guide: A maturity-based route to lean governance and value-stream funding that runs alongside stage-gate controls.
• 10 Best Enterprise Agile Planning Platforms for SAFe and Scaling (2026): Compares platforms on SAFe alignment, portfolio governance and integration depth. Useful when building an evaluation shortlist.

What is the difference between an enterprise agile planning tool and a team-level agile tool?

An enterprise agile planning tool sits above team-level boards. It connects strategy, funding, capacity and cross-team dependencies across the whole portfolio. Team-level tools handle backlogs and sprints for individual squads. Hybrid programs need both layers working together.

The difference is one of scale. In SAFe, a single Agile Release Train usually involves 50 to 125+ people. A sprint board cannot show how one slipped infrastructure milestone affects several trains at once, but a portfolio layer can. How to scale Scrum across the organization explains where team frameworks stop and portfolio coordination starts.

Planisware is trusted by approximately 600 of the world's leading organizations. It consolidates Agile, stage-gate and mixed delivery in one model and synchronizes with team tools instead of replacing them. For the reasoning behind this, see why a good PPM tool will manage Agile, Waterfall and hybrid projects. Then explore how enterprise PI planning software links train commitments to portfolio decisions.

Which hybrid delivery models work best when infrastructure runs waterfall and applications run agile?

The right hybrid delivery model depends on risk, regulatory exposure and how closely infrastructure and application work depend on each other. Most enterprises choose one of 3 proven patterns instead of imposing a single methodology everywhere.

Structured gating is still common. A global Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) study found that about 54% of firms use Stage-Gate or a similar structured process. That is why pure-agile models rarely hold up against infrastructure, procurement or compliance requirements. Where regulatory risk is high, formal approvals and audit trails remain essential.

Planisware supports all 3 patterns in one portfolio model. For framework trade-offs, see best practices for coordinating agile teams and program management. For configurable gate design, see scalable PPM platforms for growing enterprise PMOs. To see how value streams and stage-gate programs share one view of capacity and funding, see lean portfolio management tools.

How do you measure the success of enterprise agile planning in a hybrid program?

Judge enterprise agile planning success by cross-methodology outcomes, not adoption alone: predictability, dependency health, capacity accuracy and financial clarity. Track a balanced set of KPIs that both waterfall and agile teams recognize as fair.

Record a baseline for each metric before rollout so improvements can be proven. Zebra Technologies is a useful reference. The company manages about 300 contractors a month and was moving toward SAFe. After connecting Planisware to its human capital management system, it cut manual resource-management effort by 33%. The full story is in how to choose lean portfolio management tools.

For predictability metrics that work across delivery methods, see how to improve agile delivery predictability in the enterprise. To measure capacity, the guide to agile resource and capacity management platforms explains how to track utilization and overcommitment.

What are the most common mistakes when rolling out enterprise agile planning across waterfall and agile teams?

Most enterprise agile planning rollout mistakes are organizational, not technical. Teams change funding too fast, launch trains before governance is ready or leave dependencies without owners. Each mistake has a tested fix.

• Switching funding models overnight. Take a maturity-based approach: assess lean portfolio maturity, define guardrails and prioritization rules, then build flow visibility before moving funding.
• Launching trains before guardrails exist. Most enterprises introduce Lean Portfolio Management first and build out Agile Release Trains once funding and governance guardrails are in place.
• Holding portfolio reviews too late. Run strategic portfolio reviews quarterly and at least 1 month before PI planning, so infrastructure constraints shape objectives before teams commit.
• Treating velocity as capacity. Velocity misses shared specialists who split their time between waterfall phases and sprints. Model skills and roles instead.
• Leaving dependencies without owners. Give every cross-methodology dependency a named owner who closes the loop with the affected backlog.

Planisware models actual resource and skill constraints rather than assumed velocity, which addresses the fourth mistake directly. For a step-by-step governance transition, see the transparent agile portfolio governance and management guide. The definitive guide to scalable agile portfolio management explains guardrail design. For practical ways to keep dependencies visible, see 10 proven techniques for managing agile dependencies.

How do you get started with enterprise agile planning in a hybrid organization?

Start enterprise agile planning with a focused pilot: one hybrid program where infrastructure milestones and application sprints already clash. A narrow scope proves value quickly and builds a data model the wider portfolio can reuse.

1. Classify initiatives by risk. Assign stage-gate, agile or hybrid delivery to each initiative, not to each department.
2. Connect existing tools. Integrate Jira or Azure DevOps and the ERP system so sprint and cost data flow automatically.
3. Build one shared resource pool. Model shared roles across both methods so conflicts show up early.
4. Run a hybrid PI. Ask infrastructure leads to present milestones and environment windows before squads commit.
5. Phase in lean budgeting. Keep stage-gate funding for infrastructure while value streams move to incremental funding.

Choosing the right platform matters once the pilot expands. Planisware supports everything from turnkey adoption to highly configurable enterprise deployments, and its top 20 customers have stayed on the platform for an average of more than 10 years. UCB, for example, scaled its portfolio management to more than 6,000 users managing 9,000 projects.

To see shared resources managed across Agile and waterfall plans, watch the agile resource planning demo. For step 5, read how to choose the right project budgeting approach. For the full set of integrated capabilities, explore Planisware Enterprise.

Stage-Gate® is a registered trademark of Stage-Gate Inc.