Loading
The board is in one tool and the contract is a document nobody opens after kickoff. Scope creep is noticed as a feeling three sprints in, by which point four weeks of work have been given away.
Nobody decided to do that. It happens because the two pictures were never in the same place.
Sprints, velocity and burndown work as expected, and the phases underneath came from the accepted quote rather than from a kickoff conversation.
A story added mid-sprint appears on the burndown as a rising line and against the sold lines as variance, at the moment it is added.
It is not an issue tracker for code, and it does not replace one. It holds phases, capacity, time and margin above whatever your engineers live in.
And it will not make estimates accurate. It will show you how the last six went.
The standup digest summarises what actually changed, citing the tasks it read, so the meeting covers exceptions rather than narration.
Delivery risk comes from the work — ageing tasks, stalled dependencies, capacity that never existed — rather than from whoever speaks first.
Yes — sprints, velocity, burndown and a backlog carrying the sold scope.
Yes, through the API.
As variance against the sold lines, immediately.
We will run it end to end on your own numbers in half an hour, and tell you honestly which parts Treepie does not improve.