The methodology should fit the project, not the other way round. In Projektiassistent, Scrum, Kanban, Waterfall, PRINCE2, hybrid and simple project work as separate logic layers — you pick the framework the work is managed in without changing what the project substantively is.
There is no point choosing a methodology on principle. What matters is whether the work is known in advance or takes shape as you go, and how strict the documentation has to be.
Sequential phases with approval gates. Fits when the scope is known up front and documentation must be strict — investments, infrastructure, regulated environments.
Sprint-based iterative work with strictly defined roles and artefacts. Fits software and product development where requirements sharpen as you go.
A flow-based system with WIP limits and continuous improvement. Fits support services, content production and processes with no clear end.
A process-based model with clear stages and decision points where the business case is continuously validated. Fits the public sector and large organisations.
A Scrum project uses sprints and a backlog; a Waterfall project uses phases and approval gates. The terminology stays correct — not cosmetics, but a condition for the management structure to actually work.
A small initiative only needs a simple project with minimal overhead. Complex multi-phase work suits a hybrid that combines frameworks.
An IT development project stays an IT development project whether it is run with Scrum or Waterfall. Only the way the work is organised changes.
IT development, construction, manufacturing, culture, agriculture, consulting — each type has its own assumptions, terminology and critical decision points.
If the choice turns out not to fit, the project does not have to be rebuilt. Switching adjusts the delivery framework; the substance stays.
If the scope is known and deadlines are fixed, Waterfall or PRINCE2 fits. If requirements sharpen as you go, Scrum fits. If the work is a continuous flow with no clear end, Kanban fits. For a small initiative, a simple project is fastest.
No. The system sets up the matching structure and uses the correct terminology itself. If you are unsure, start with a simple project and switch later.
The substance of the project — objectives, activities, budget, risks — stays. What changes is how the work is viewed and tracked: phases become sprints, for example.
Yes. Each project carries its own methodology. In the portfolio view they sit side by side, because the health and deadline logic is shared.
Describe the project in your own words — the AI drafts a structured plan.
→🛑The system tells you what is still missing for a decision.
→🧩Break the project down: tasks, subtasks and a WBS.
→📊Schedule, dependencies and milestones — generated from your plan.
→🔀Task flow in columns — tied to the plan, not a separate list.
→👥Who is overloaded and who is free — before a deadline slips.
→⚠️Risk register, impact–probability matrix and mitigations.
→💶Cost lines, VAT and free balance in real time — ready for reporting.
→📊A status report for management in seconds, not hours.
→🗂️Every project on one screen — an aerial view, not a magnifying glass.
→🤝Share the project, set permissions, keep data separated.
→🧠Chat, recommendations, what-if and meeting notes in one.
→🔌REST API, webhooks, Slack, Teams and calendar.
→🔒Layered access control, audit log and GDPR compliance.
→14 days free — all Pro features, no card required.
Start for free →