Forecast
Predict when work will finish and how much effort is left, using a Monte Carlo simulation of your team's past effort.
A single completion date is a guess. The forecast gives you a range instead. It runs a Monte Carlo simulation over how much effort your team's past work actually took, then projects how much effort is left on a parent issue or initiative and when it's likely to be done.
You get two answers:
Remaining effort, in full-time equivalents (FTE), so you can see how big the rest of the work is.
Completion dates at three confidence levels, so you can plan around how likely each date is rather than betting on one.
Why a simulation
Real work is uneven. Some tasks take an afternoon, others drag on for weeks, and the people doing them aren't always working at full capacity. A simple "average task time × tasks left" estimate hides all of that variation and tends to be optimistic.
Instead, Swarmia looks at how much effort each piece of recent work actually took and recombines those real outcomes across thousands of simulated scenarios. Each scenario draws a different mix of fast and slow tasks, so the result is a spread of possible futures. The dates you see are read off that spread.
Where to find it
The forecast lives on the overview of a parent issue or an initiative:
The Forecast remaining panel shows the remaining effort and the projected completion date at a glance.
The Forecast button opens the full view, where you can read every confidence level and adjust the assumptions behind the forecast.
Reading the forecast
The forecast view has two halves: the assumptions on the left and the results on the right under Estimated completion.
Remaining shows the leftover effort as an FTE range, from optimistic to conservative. For example, 1.8–2.2 FTE means the rest of the work is worth roughly two months of one full-time engineer.
Likely completion is the headline date, the one most scenarios land on or before.
The three confidence levels below it show how the date shifts with certainty:
Optimistic
50%
Half of the simulated scenarios finished by this date. A best case, not a plan.
Likely
80%
Four out of five scenarios finished by this date. The date to plan around.
Conservative
90%
Nine out of ten scenarios finished by this date. A safer date to commit to externally.
Later dates carry more certainty, so the gap between optimistic and conservative tells you how predictable the work is. A wide gap means the past effort varied a lot and the finish date is hard to pin down. A narrow gap means the work has been steady.
Scope simulation results plots the full distribution of remaining effort, so you can see the most common outcomes and how long the tail of slower scenarios runs.
Adjusting the forecast
The forecast starts from sensible defaults, but you can change any assumption to test a scenario. Nothing you change here is saved to the issue or initiative.
Scope → Remaining is the number of open subtasks left to complete, counting the lowest-level tasks only. Override it to model adding or cutting work.
Investment → Contributors is who's doing the work. Switch between People and Teams to pick individuals or whole teams. The forecast draws on these contributors' own past effort, both to size the remaining work and to pace it, so changing who's selected shifts the result even when the scope stays the same.
Focus controls that pace. Based on past activity uses each contributor's recent monthly effort. Switch to Custom to set a percentage of capacity, for example 60% if the team is splitting attention with other work.
Advanced → Sample data is the window of history the simulation draws from, six months by default. Widen it for a longer-running team, or narrow it if recent work is more representative of what's ahead.
On an initiative, you can select Set as target date to set the initiative's target to the likely completion date. This is available if your role lets you manage initiatives.
What good looks like
Plan around the likely (80%) date, commit externally to the conservative (90%) one. The optimistic date is a best case, useful for spotting upside but risky to promise.
Watch the spread, not just the date. A wide gap between optimistic and conservative is a signal that the work is unpredictable. That's worth a conversation before it's worth a deadline.
Re-run it as work lands. The forecast updates as tasks close and effort accrues, so a date that keeps slipping points to scope growth or a drop in focus, both of which you can see by adjusting the inputs.
Requirements and limitations
The forecast needs recent effort history from the selected contributors. With no history in the sample window, there's nothing to simulate and no date can be projected.
It counts leaf subtasks only, the lowest-level issues with no children. Parent issues don't add to the remaining count.
Review-only participation isn't counted toward the pace. A contributor who only reviews code doesn't move the burn rate.
If the remaining effort outpaces the team's investment, the forecast shows 10+ years rather than a date. That usually means too few contributors, too little focus, or not enough history to go on, not a literal decade.
Completion dates assume no weekend work, so a date landing on a weekend moves to the following Monday.
The forecast is available for all types of in-progress initiatives and in-progress parent issues.
Frequently asked questions
Why does the forecast change when I select different contributors?
The simulation draws on the selected contributors' own past effort, so who you pick shapes the result even when the number of subtasks stays the same. Their typical effort per task sets the size of the remaining work, and their recent monthly pace sets how quickly it gets done. Selecting more contributors, or ones who've been more active, raises the projected pace and pulls the date earlier.
What counts as remaining work?
Open leaf subtasks, the lowest-level issues that aren't yet done. You can override the count under Scope to test what adding or removing work does to the forecast.
Last updated
Was this helpful?