Overview

Use cases
along the planning cycle

From the sales forecast to the notification after a countermeasure: every step of the planning cycle is a use case, and all of them run in one system. Three strengths carry the cycle and are built for long, multi-stage industrial projects: dates and capacity in one system, departments that plan along themselves, and suppliers who report straight into the plan.

A project plan in Linetrack that project management, departments and suppliers work on together

In brief

Linetrack's use cases are the nine steps of the planning cycle: sales forecast, rough planning, detailed and staff planning, tracking on site, portfolio analysis, scenario planning, plan vs. actual, countermeasures and notification. Three USPs carry these steps in particular: scheduling and capacity planning in one system, collaborative project management, and integrating suppliers. Each USP widens the circle of people who maintain the same plan. The USPs build on each other, but each one can be introduced separately.

91 %

named a tangle of spreadsheets and
tools as their starting problem

100 %

named missing transparency
across the project portfolio

56 %

had a live interface running
within the first six months

1512

industrial projects steered
in parallel

All figures on this page come from a full survey of every productive Linetrack implementation, as of August 2026. Multiple answers were possible.

Use cases

Nine use cases, one planning cycle

Every step is a use case, and a project does not go round the cycle once but continuously: feedback from assembly becomes a warning in the portfolio, the warning becomes a scenario, the scenario a decision that reaches everyone affected. Pick a USP to see which use cases it carries.

Plan · Step 1Sales forecast
The resource demand of a sales opportunity is estimated roughly per department and laid against capacity before the order comes in.
Role: SalesScheduling & capacity · coreCollaborative · touched on
Scheduling and capacity planning
Plan · Step 2Rough planning
The won project is structured, scheduled in the Gantt chart and given binding hour targets per department.
Role: Project managementScheduling & capacity · coreCollaborative · core
Gantt planning
Plan · Step 3Detailed and staff planning
Departments take over time windows and hours from the rough plan and assign them to people. Subcontracted work is set up as an external service.
Role: Department headScheduling & capacity · coreCollaborative · coreSuppliers · core
Resource and capacity planning
Track · Step 4Tracking on site
Progress is reported where the work happens: on the Kanban board, in the Linetrack app, or by the supplier directly on the task.
Role: Team member, supplierCollaborative · coreSuppliers · core
Linetrack mobile app
Track · Step 5Portfolio analysis
Delays and upcoming bottlenecks become visible across all projects while there is still time to react.
Role: Project management, managementScheduling & capacity · coreSuppliers · touched on
Multi-project management
Steer · Step 6Scenario planning
Alternatives are calculated without touching the valid plan.
Role: Project managementScheduling & capacity · coreCollaborative · touched on
Project planning and control
Steer · Step 7Plan vs. actual
The chosen scenario is set against the actual status taken from the feedback.
Role: Project managementCollaborative · touched onNot owned by a single USP
Plan vs. actual comparison
Steer · Step 8Countermeasures
Rescheduling, redistributing, overtime or subcontracting: the chosen measure takes effect on the linked plan straight away.
Role: Project management, department headScheduling & capacity · coreSuppliers · coreCollaborative · touched on
Project control
Steer · Step 9Notification
Whoever is affected by a change is informed automatically, including via Outlook or as a reminder to the supplier.
Role: Everyone affectedCollaborative · coreSuppliers · core
Collaborative project management

Core means the USP page describes how this use case works. Touched on means the page mentions it, but it is not the page's subject.

This overview only maps things. Each use case links to the page that describes it in detail; how planning and control work together as a control loop is covered under project planning and control.

USPs

Three USPs, built for industrial projects

Linetrack solves these three strengths for long, multi-stage projects with shared resources and subcontracted work. They build on each other, and the order follows the question of who writes into the plan. Each card names who plans along, what becomes visible as a result, and which use cases the USP carries.

USP 1

Scheduling and capacity in one system

Carries the use cases

Who plans along

Project management plans dates and available capacity in the same data set instead of reconciling two separate tools.

What that makes visible

Whether a committed date sits on free capacity. Resource conflicts become visible across projects, not once the date has already slipped.

Scheduling and capacity planning in one system

USP 2

Departments plan along

Carries the use cases

Who plans along

Department heads and team members maintain their own share – each role with write access to exactly the part it answers for.

What that makes visible

Project status as of the last feedback instead of as of the last status request. The status round disappears as a work step.

Collaborative project management

USP 3

Suppliers plan along

Carries the use cases

Who plans along

The external partner gets their own tasks and their own access, and reports dates and progress straight into the plan.

What that makes visible

The subcontracted share. A reported delay feeds straight through into the overall plan instead of being transferred by hand.

Integrating suppliers into projects

The three pages describe the same plan from three angles, not three products. Anyone who only needs one USP only needs to read one page.

Mapping

Which USP carries which use case

The same mapping as a table. None of the three USPs carries the plan vs. actual comparison as its core: it needs the planned values from the first USP and the feedback from the second and third, which is why it has a page of its own.

Nine use cases of the planning cycle and the three USPs
Use case	Phase	Scheduling & capacity	Collaborative	Suppliers	In detail on
01 Sales forecast	Plan	core	touched on	–	Scheduling and capacity planning
02 Rough planning	Plan	core	core	–	Gantt planning
03 Detailed and staff planning	Plan	core	core	core	Resource and capacity planning
04 Tracking on site	Track	–	core	core	Linetrack mobile app
05 Portfolio analysis	Track	core	–	touched on	Multi-project management
06 Scenario planning	Steer	core	touched on	–	Project planning and control
07 Plan vs. actual	Steer	–	touched on	–	Plan vs. actual comparison
08 Countermeasures	Steer	core	touched on	core	Project control
09 Notification	Steer	–	core	core	Collaborative project management
Use cases as core / touched on		6 / 0	4 / 4	4 / 1

Who writes into the plan

Who works on the plan – stage by stage

The three USPs are also an order of introduction, not product tiers. They describe how far the circle of people with their own write access to the plan has been opened. Anyone starting out usually starts with dates and capacity planning – without connected capacity, nobody can see what a commitment actually costs.

Every further stage adds no feature – it adds at least one further role with its own write access. What grows is the share of the plan that is maintained first-hand.

The use cases show what happens to the plan, the stages show who does them themselves. At stage 1, project management plans and steers and still has to ask for progress. From stage 2, detailed planning and feedback come from the departments, from stage 3 also for the subcontracted share.

How the circle grows

Four roles, three stages: each stage carries over the roles of the one before it and adds at least one more.

already involvednew at this stage

Stage 1: Scheduling and capacity in one system. 1 role with write access to the plan: Project management. New at this stage: Project management. This makes visible: whether a committed date sits on free capacity – resource conflicts become visible across projects. First-hand: forecast, rough planning, portfolio analysis, scenario and countermeasure (use cases 1, 2, 5, 6, 8).
Stage 2: Departments plan along. 3 roles with write access to the plan: Project management, Department head, Team member. New at this stage: Department head, Team member. This makes visible: project status as of the last feedback instead of the last status request. First-hand: plus detailed planning, feedback, plan vs. actual and notification (use cases 3, 4, 7, 9).
Stage 3: Suppliers plan along. 4 roles with write access to the plan: Project management, Department head, Team member, Supplier. New at this stage: Supplier. This makes visible: the subcontracted share – a reported delay feeds straight through into the overall plan. First-hand: the same use cases for the subcontracted share, plus subcontracting as a countermeasure (use cases 3, 4, 8, 9).

The stages describe how far the circle of co-planners has been opened – they are not product tiers. The four roles and their write access are taken from the three USP pages, the numbers from the planning cycle above.

The decisive point

Why the order has a reason

Planning together without connected capacity is misleading: the department commits, but nobody sees what the commitment costs. That is why scheduling and capacity planning comes first. Each further stage adds no new feature; it adds a role that maintains its own part of the plan.

Only then does the cycle close: the delay from assembly shows up in the portfolio, the scenario calculates with real capacity, and the measure reaches the people who carry it out.

Many projects side by side are the subject of multi-project management; the running comparison with what actually happens is described under project planning and control.

91 %

named a tangle of spreadsheets and tools as their starting problem

56 %

had a live interface running within the first six months

How the pages fit together

USP page, product page, concept page: what is where

There are several pages for each of the three USPs, and they answer different questions. Knowing the split gets you to the page that actually answers your question faster.

USP page – the sequence inside the project. Who writes what into the plan and when, in which order it happens, and what follows from a deviation. These are the three pages behind the cards above – each describes one stage of the circle.
Product page – the scope of a module: which functions exist, what they look like in the system and what a demo shows. The third USP, for example, has the supplier access product page. If you want to know whether a function exists, that is the right page; if you want to know how the sequence in the project works, use the USP page.
Concept page – the umbrella term together with its limits. Supplier management also covers selection, qualification, evaluation and the contractual relationship. Of all that, Linetrack covers the coordination of dates and tasks inside the running project, not the purchasing process – the concept page draws that line in detail.
Method page – the use cases of the cycle that belong to no single USP. The control loop of planning and re-steering is described under project planning and control, interventions in the running project under project control, and the comparison with the actual status under plan vs. actual comparison.

In practice: for a question about functions (“Can the supplier attach files to a task?”) the product page is quicker. For a question about sequence (“What happens if they report a two-week delay?”) the USP page. For a question about scope (“Isn't that purchasing's job?”) the concept page.

The industry pages cut across all of this. They sort the same questions by project structure – for example project management in mechanical and plant engineering, where all three USPs usually meet, because the same designers and fitters work on several projects and substantial shares of the work are subcontracted.

Honestly bounded

Where the three USPs end

Three points are covered in detail on the USP pages and should not be missing here, because they decide what to expect.

Collaborative does not mean everyone may change everything. Every write permission belongs to a role: project management answers for milestones, phases and the targets per department, the department head plans within those targets, team members report progress on their own tasks. And the decision about what happens in a conflict is still taken by a person in a meeting – the system supplies the figures, not the verdict.
Not a chat or social collaboration tool. There is no activity stream, no channels, no reactions. Communication stays in Microsoft Teams, in Outlook and in the meeting room; the planning stays in the system. Interfaces connect the systems that are in daily use.
Not a procurement or SRM system. Tendering, qualification, evaluation, ordering and framework agreements stay in the procurement system. Linetrack coordinates dates and tasks in the running project, not the awarding of contracts.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions about the use cases

Still have questions?

Book a call with our team.

Which use cases does Linetrack cover?

The nine steps of the planning cycle, from the sales forecast to notifications. Three USPs carry them in particular: scheduling and capacity planning in one system, collaborative project management, and integrating suppliers. The USPs build on each other: first dates and capacity sit in the same data set, then the departments maintain their own share, then the external partner joins with tasks of their own. Which tool gets replaced along the way – Excel, MS Project or Primavera – is answered by the tool comparisons.

Which USP carries which use case?

Scheduling and capacity planning mainly carries planning and steering: sales forecast, rough and detailed planning, portfolio analysis, scenario and countermeasure. Collaborative project management carries the use cases in which departments plan themselves, report back and get notified. Supplier integration carries partial planning, feedback, subcontracting and reminders for the subcontracted share.

In which order should the USPs be introduced?

In the order they appear here. The rollout starts in project management: it takes ten working days from kick-off to go-live. After that it is extended into further departments step by step, while existing projects keep running. Suppliers come last, because their feedback only changes anything once someone internally can see its effect.

Do we have to use all three USPs?

No. The USPs build on each other in substance, but each works on its own. Companies that subcontract little stay with the first two permanently. If only project management works in the system, you still get schedules checked against resources – but the plan is then only as current as the last status request.

Can we start with stage 2 if capacity data is not maintained yet?

Technically yes, in practice rarely useful. A department head maintains their share because the workload view is their own planning tool – and that view comes out of the capacity data: hours committed from all projects, minus holidays, sickness and work in progress. Without capacity data, planning together is reduced to a reporting duty towards project management, and that is the first thing to be dropped under deadline pressure.

Who plans along – and who decides?

Depending on the stage, up to four roles write into the plan: project management, department head, team member and supplier, each with write access to their own area of responsibility. Decisions are separate from that: whatever a department head can solve within their area, they solve themselves; anything beyond it is escalated visibly to project management. The system shows the effect, the decision stays with people.

Where does the plan vs. actual comparison belong?

It is the seventh use case in the cycle and does not belong to any of the three USPs alone. It needs the planned values from scheduling and capacity planning and the feedback from departments and suppliers. How the comparison works per task is described on the plan vs. actual comparison page.

Where do the three USPs end?

In three places. Collaborative does not mean everyone may change everything – write permissions belong to roles. Linetrack is not a chat tool; communication stays in Teams and Outlook. And it is not a procurement or SRM system: tendering, evaluation and ordering stay in the procurement system, while Linetrack coordinates dates in the running project.

Learn more