Planned vs Actual - Advanced Roadmaps

Question

Hi

I'm looking for the most efficent way to track planned vs actual within advanced roadmaps.  We do the majority of our planning from an epic level with the delivery team doing a deeper dive at story level and I want to be able to show changes to the plan at the end of each sprint.

The only option I could see was to create a new scenario - one showing what we planned at the start of the project and one showing the live version but ideally I want to be able to see these next to each other so we can see what took longer than planned and what was quicker.

Any advice would be great

Max Mykhailenko · Answer

Hi Claire,

If you still need this workflow, I would treat "planned vs actual" as two related but separate checks.

Advanced Roadmaps is strong for the plan: target start, target end, sequencing, dependencies, and what the roadmap currently says should happen. The harder part is the actual execution evidence, especially at epic level.

For sprint-end review, I would avoid comparing only two static scenarios if the goal is to understand what changed. A baseline scenario can show that the plan moved, but it usually does not explain why it moved. The useful questions are:

* Which epics took longer or shorter than planned?
* Did the dates move because execution was slower, scope increased, or priorities changed?
* Did estimates change during the sprint?
* Was work actually logged against the epic during the period, or did the plan move without matching execution evidence?

So the practical pattern I would use is:

* Keep Advanced Roadmaps as the planning view.
* Keep planned start / target end dates at epic level.
* At the end of each sprint, review each epic against actual worklog activity, estimate changes, and issue movement during that same time window.
* Use that evidence to explain the variance, not just report that the date changed.

Disclosure: I am building Focus Flow, a Jira Marketplace app for this exact weekly epic review problem. It is not a replacement for Advanced Roadmaps. The gap it tries to close is putting planned dates and actual worklog evidence in the same epic execution view, so you can see plan vs reality and drill into the issues behind the change.

If you stay fully native, the closest workaround is a disciplined review process: snapshot the planned dates at sprint start, then compare them with current epic dates, worklogs, and estimate changes at sprint end. The important part is not just the planned/actual date pair, but the evidence that explains the difference.

Jonathan Bertossa · Answer

I have the same "problem". There is a solution?

Create a second plan using actual date (start and end)?

- Planned use target start and target end

- Actual use actual start and actual end

Gerti Gligor · Answer

I am interested in this as well, can't find anything on this