Built for revenue teams running client delivery projects
CRM and project management as one record system, not two tools held together with webhooks.
Services businesses, implementation partners, and account-managed revenue teams need the deal and the delivery project to live in the same record system. Strkr Projects runs natively inside the CRM with sprints, epics, issues, releases, and goals, so the handoff from signed to delivered is a status change, not an export.
Revenue teams that run client-facing delivery work (professional services firms, implementation partners, agencies, consulting shops, SaaS teams with managed-onboarding motions) consistently hit the same friction point: the deal lives in the CRM, the delivery project lives in a separate project management tool (Jira, Asana, Monday, ClickUp, Smartsheet), and the two never truly stay in sync. The frictions below are what teams reliably experience running both tools on the same engagement, drawn from migration debriefs across dozens of service businesses.
Context lives in two places
The AM opens Jira and the CRM to answer one client question.
The client emails asking about a delivery milestone. The account manager opens the CRM for the deal context, opens Jira for the sprint status, correlates manually, writes the reply, logs the activity in the CRM, and the Jira ticket history is lost to the deal record forever. Over a 40-account book of business, this specific pattern costs the AM about four hours a week in context switching, and nothing is captured in a way that compounds.
Capacity planning is blind
Sales commits delivery dates without seeing team capacity.
The sales rep closes a deal with a go-live date. The delivery team opens the project in Jira and discovers the sprint is already at 140 percent capacity for the committed quarter. The go-live date slips, the client is upset, the renewal is at risk, the comp dispute goes to finance. The pattern is systemic because sales has no visibility into delivery capacity when the quote is going out.
Status roll-up is manual
Monday morning starts with four spreadsheets.
The services leader needs a weekly status roll-up across the active delivery book. The source data lives in Jira (ticket progress), Harvest or Toggl (hours burned), the CRM (deal values and milestones), and a shared drive (status reports written by individual AMs). The roll-up is a manual Monday-morning spreadsheet exercise taking 90 minutes to update, and the data is one week stale by the time the exec meeting happens.
Billing and delivery disconnect
Hours burned versus hours billed is a reconciliation nightmare.
The delivery team logs hours in one tool, the finance team invoices from another, and the reconciliation at month end is a finance workstream running three to four days each cycle. Specific disputes about hours categorization, specific concerns about client-billable versus internal time, specific overrun identification all happen in finance after the fact. The pattern wastes finance capacity and makes real-time project margin impossible.
Renewal risk is invisible
The AM finds out the project is in trouble at the renewal conversation.
The CRM shows a deal as a healthy renewal candidate. The delivery project in the PM tool has specific issues (missed sprint goals, unresolved defects, declining client satisfaction) that the AM would act on if they were visible. The renewal conversation surfaces the problems and the AM has three weeks to recover a relationship that has been drifting for six months. The signals exist in the data; they are just in a different tool.
New-rep ramp is harder
A new AM inherits the account without any delivery context.
A new AM inherits a 15-account book from an exiting rep. The CRM has the deal history and the account notes. The PM tool has the delivery history, the active issues, the sprint comments, the implementation decisions made months ago. The new AM has to learn two tools, correlate the context manually, and lose the history that lives in Jira comments. The ramp takes six weeks instead of four and specific relationships cool during the transition.
What Strkr Projects covers
The feature set of the native project management module.
Strkr Projects is a complete delivery module, not a feature strip grafted onto the CRM. The cards below describe the capability set so a buyer can validate the fit against the current Jira or Asana or ClickUp deployment.
Sprints and backlog
Sprint-based delivery with capacity bars.
Define sprints with start and end dates. Pull issues from the backlog into the sprint with drag-and-drop. See per-assignee capacity bars with OOO ranges reflected automatically. Burndown chart tracks progress across the sprint. Sprint review and retrospective templates ship as standard surfaces. The model fits two-week or three-week sprint cadences and both scrum and kanban variants.
Epics and dependencies
Multi-sprint work tracked at the epic level.
Group issues into epics for multi-sprint work. Epic timeline view shows start and end plus the sprint spans. Dependency view (blocker, blocks, involves-me) surfaces cross-team risk. Roadmap view renders a Gantt timeline with sprint swimlanes, epic bars, today marker, and drag-to-reschedule interaction. The tooling supports delivery managers running multi-quarter engagement plans.
Issues and types
Fourteen issue types with custom fields.
Standard issue types (Story, Task, Bug, Epic, Research, Spike) plus seven more types customizable per project. Fourteen field types including user, multi-user, lookup, number, date, select, multi-select, rich text. Issue detail page covers description, comments with mentions, activity timeline, linked CRM records, time tracking, attachments. The depth matches Jira for standard delivery motions.
Releases and goals
Shipped releases with notes plus goals and key results.
Define releases with target dates, status tabs, expandable rows, and auto-generated markdown release notes. Define goals with periods, status chips, scope badges, and inline-editable key results. The combination gives delivery leaders the structured surface for release planning plus the goal-tracking surface for the quarterly OKR cadence.
Boards and views
Board, backlog, sprint, and roadmap views.
Board view with density controls, color-by, group-by, assignee filter, and swimlanes. Backlog with collapsible groups, drag-into-sprint, per-assignee capacity bars. Sprint tab with metric cards, burndown, and by-assignee breakdown. Roadmap with Gantt timeline and sprint swimlanes. The views cover the standard delivery-manager and rep workflows.
Account-level roll-up
CRM Account detail with a Projects tab.
The CRM Account record carries a Projects tab that lists every delivery project for the account with status, progress, open-issue count, next milestone, and specific health signals. One round-trip to the API populates the full tab. Account managers see the delivery context at the account level without opening a separate tool.
Automations
Transition rules and workflow automation.
Transition rules fire on status changes (projects.workflow.status_changed trigger) to notify owners, create follow-up issues, update CRM records, log activities. Per-project Automations tab reuses the standard AutomationRuleModal with projectId scope. Workspace-level Automations list filters to all project-scoped rules. The automation depth replaces the common external connector tool plus Jira automation layer.
Why native beats integrated
The advantages of one record system versus two tools.
A single-record system has specific advantages that even a well-maintained CRM-to-Jira integration cannot replicate. The cards below describe the operational wins.
Zero-sync drift
The deal and the project cannot disagree.
Integrated CRM-plus-PM setups accumulate sync drift. Specific records disagree on status, specific owners differ between tools, specific updates get lost in sync failures. A native integration has no sync layer; the data is literally the same database. The effect: zero sync-drift tickets, zero reconciliation workstreams, zero sync-failure debugging.
Permissions follow the user
One role model, not two.
Integrated setups require role mapping between CRM and PM tool, which is error-prone and often loses sensitivity controls (a CRM customer-record permission gets translated into a PM project permission with different semantics). Strkr Projects uses the same role, team, and permission model as the CRM. The effect: one admin surface, one audit log, one access-review workflow.
Reporting across the full lifecycle
Deal metrics and delivery metrics in one query.
The services leader needs reports that join deal data and delivery data: deals by project margin, accounts by open-issue count, pipeline by delivery-team capacity, close date versus actual go-live date. Integrated setups answer these with manual ETL or a BI tool. Strkr Projects answers them natively because the data lives in one place.
One AI layer
Strkr AI reasons across deal and delivery context.
Strkr AI assistant sees the full account context in one query: the deal history, the delivery history, the open issues, the sprint progress, the client communications. The depth means the AI can answer questions, for example about what is at risk on the Acme account, with reasoning that joins deal and delivery context. Integrated setups require stitching across tools or specific MCP work.
One license line
Flat per seat for CRM plus Projects.
Integrated setups carry two license lines: the CRM subscription and the PM tool subscription. For a 40-user team, Jira Standard runs about 32K a year, Asana Business runs about 48K, Monday Pro runs about 55K. Strkr Projects adds a flat per-seat line in the standard tier, not a separate contract. The effect: material TCO reduction and one procurement workstream.
One mobile and desktop experience
Reps carry one app, not two.
Integrated setups require reps to install two apps, learn two UIs, remember two sets of keyboard shortcuts, and switch context to find information. Strkr Projects ships inside the same desktop and mobile app as the CRM. The reps carry one surface. The effect: higher adoption, less training overhead, faster context resolution during client calls.
Who runs CRM-plus-PM natively
The team shapes that benefit most.
Not every business needs CRM-plus-PM as one record system. The cards below describe the team shapes where the native model pays off and where the integrated model may still be the right call.
Professional services firms
Consulting, agencies, implementation partners.
Services firms with 10 to 150 billable staff and 20 to 300 active client engagements benefit the most. The deal and the delivery project are typically one-to-one, the AM owns both surfaces, the finance team needs the billing-plus-delivery view. Strkr Projects is a direct fit for this shape and the TCO savings versus Jira or Asana are specifically material.
SaaS teams with specific managed-onboarding motions (30 to 180 day implementations) benefit when the delivery project lives in the CRM. The CS team opens the Projects tab on the Account, sees the implementation status, references the open issues in the next QBR, and tracks the onboarding health as part of the renewal signal. Strkr Projects fits this motion cleanly.
Product companies with services arm
Enterprise sale with a bundled delivery scope.
Companies with a product sale that includes a professional services engagement (enterprise SaaS, platform plays, specific industry solutions) benefit when the services engagement lives in the CRM. The deal, the SOW, the delivery project, and the renewal all share one record system. Strkr Projects supports this with specific SOW tracking plus project-to-deal linking.
Account-managed revenue teams
Expansion-driven revenue with active client work.
Account-managed revenue teams (expansion-driven motion, 10 to 50 accounts per AM) benefit when the active delivery work is a signal into the renewal and expansion conversation. The AM carries the full context across deal and delivery and runs a stronger quarterly business review as a result. Strkr Projects fits this motion.
Teams better off integrated
When a dedicated engineering team runs Jira.
If the delivery work is run by a dedicated engineering team already deeply committed to Jira, the native Projects module may not be the right call for that team. The pattern is often that revenue-adjacent delivery (CS, implementation) runs on Strkr Projects, and the engineering team keeps Jira. The split preserves engineering tooling while putting revenue-side delivery in the CRM.
Specific capability details
The feature depth most buyers test on.
The cards below address the capability points that come up most often in evaluation. Each one describes what Strkr Projects actually ships so the depth is clear instead of hopeful.
Capacity drawer
OOO ranges and per-sprint overrides.
The capacity drawer renders per-assignee capacity with configurable OOO ranges stored as jsonb per user. Per-sprint overrides adjust capacity for specific sprint-level planning. The Monday-to-Friday workday math produces an effectivePoints value per assignee per sprint, which drives the capacity bar on the sprint planning surface.
Issue modal lookups
PersonLookup, MultiPersonLookup, MultiChipSelect.
Issue creation and edit modals use PersonLookup for assignee, MultiPersonLookup for watchers, MultiChipSelect for labels. All lookups are scoped to project members or tenant users with specific active-user filters. Free-text assignment is banished to prevent typos and orphaned ownership.
Bulk actions
Multi-select backlog with BulkActionBar.
Backlog multi-select with Shift-click range and Cmd-click addition. BulkActionBar offers reassign, change status, change priority, change sprint, bulk-delete with confirmation. POST /issues/bulk-update is the single endpoint, atomic per transaction. The pattern handles backlog grooming workflows that would otherwise take hours.
Global search
Ctrl-K palette across projects, issues, epics.
Ctrl-K opens a palette with /projects/search as the backend. The palette ranks across project names, issue titles, issue keys, epic names, release names, goal titles. Recent-items feature surfaces the user's last ten accessed records. The interaction replaces the Jira global search for the common lookup motion.
Shared issue launcher
NewIssueLauncher with lock prop.
The NewIssueLauncher accepts a lock prop for epicId or sprintId, which auto-computes the Epic-to-Sprint relationship. The pattern means the same launcher ships inside the epic detail view, the sprint planning view, and the standalone issue creation surface, with context pre-populated appropriately. Reduces cognitive load across the planning workflows.
Rich-text everywhere
RichTextEditor plus ProseView plus auto-link.
Every description, comment, and release-note field uses the RichTextEditor with ProseView rendering. Hash-ISSUE-KEY references autolink to the referenced issue with hover preview. The pattern matches Jira Smart Links for the common cross-reference motion plus adds specific CRM-record autolinks (hash-ACCOUNT, hash-OPPORTUNITY) that no PM tool matches.
Head-to-head
Strkr Projects versus Jira plus a sync layer
Teams running CRM plus Jira with a sync layer (common integration patterns include Unito, Zoho Flow equivalents, or custom-built middleware) hit specific friction that a native module eliminates. The comparison below describes the operational differences.
Feature
Strkr
CRM plus Jira with sync
Record consistency
Native · one database
Sync layer · drift risk
Permission model
One shared model
Two mapped models
Reporting across deal and delivery
Native joins
Manual ETL or BI tool
AI assistant context
Both surfaces
Specific to each tool
License-cost structure
One per-seat line
Two subscriptions plus sync
Mobile and desktop experience
Single app
Two apps, two UIs
Admin surface
One place
Two admin workflows
Audit log scope
Deal plus delivery
Separate per tool
Account-level roll-up
Shipped Account tab
Custom report builder
How teams use Strkr
Specific CRM-plus-PM outcomes
Three recent moves from integrated setups to native Projects that illustrate how the model lands in services businesses.
Consulting firm, 38 billable staff, HubSpot plus Monday
The consolidation that recovered six hours per AM per week.
A consulting firm with 38 billable staff ran HubSpot Pro for the sales motion and Monday Pro for the delivery motion with a mid-tier integration layer. The AMs spent an estimated six hours per week each on cross-tool context switching, status roll-up, and client-call preparation. The move to Strkr with Projects native eliminated the integration layer and recovered the six hours. Twelve-month review showed 14 percent higher AM-to-account ratio because the context friction had been a hidden capacity drag.
SaaS implementation team, 24 CSMs, Salesforce plus Jira
The onboarding health signal that saved three renewals.
A SaaS company with 24 CSMs managing 15 to 20 enterprise accounts each ran Salesforce for the renewal motion and Jira for implementation tracking. The onboarding-health signals (missed sprint goals, open P0 defects, declining stakeholder-satisfaction scores) lived in Jira and were invisible at the renewal cadence. The move to Strkr Projects surfaced the signals in the Account surface. In the first twelve months, three specific renewals that were previously flagged late were saved early because the AM saw the implementation signal six weeks in advance.
Agency, 55 billable staff, custom CRM plus Asana
The project-margin visibility that changed scoping.
A full-service agency with 55 billable staff ran a legacy custom-built CRM for the sales side and Asana for delivery with manual reconciliation of hours burned versus hours billed. The move to Strkr consolidated both tools and added real-time project-margin reporting. The margin visibility changed how new engagements were scoped: the sales team adjusted pricing on the three service lines that were running thin margins, and the overall gross margin improved 4.2 points in the following four quarters.
Run the deal and the delivery in one record system.
Start a 14-day trial with sample projects loaded. Test the sprint board, the account roll-up, the capacity bars, and the AI context against your current CRM-plus-PM reality.
How does Strkr Projects compare to Jira for engineering teams?
Honest comparison. For dedicated engineering teams deeply committed to Jira with specific developer-workflow dependencies (Confluence integration, Bitbucket or GitHub automation, Jira Service Management, Jira Software Cloud tier plugins), Jira is often the right call for that team. Strkr Projects is designed for revenue-adjacent delivery (customer success, implementation, professional services, agency delivery, account-managed expansion) where the integration with the CRM is the primary value driver. A common pattern is to run Strkr Projects for revenue-side delivery and keep Jira for the engineering team.
Can we migrate from Jira or Asana or ClickUp?
Yes. The migration workstream covers projects, epics, issues, comments, attachments, users, and the history fields. For Jira, the migration consumes the Jira REST API with specific field mapping (Jira custom fields map to Strkr custom fields using the FieldTypePicker taxonomy). For Asana, the migration consumes the Asana API with task-to-issue mapping. For ClickUp, the migration uses ClickUp's export with specific list-to-project mapping. The typical migration for a 20 to 50 project workspace runs two to four weeks with a dedicated migration specialist from the Strkr onboarding team.
What is the cost of Strkr Projects?
Projects is included in the Growth and Scale tiers at the standard per-seat rate. For a 40-user team on the Growth tier, the all-in annual cost including Projects is in the mid-30K range depending on tier and multi-year commitment. The comparable Jira Standard plus Confluence Standard for a 40-user team runs about 32K a year on seats alone before any integration-layer licensing. The saving varies by current tool mix but typically runs 50 to 70 percent on the PM-tool line.
Does Strkr Projects support scrum and kanban?
Both. Scrum teams use the sprint-based delivery model with sprint start and end dates, backlog grooming, sprint planning with capacity bars, burndown tracking, and retrospective templates. Kanban teams use the board view with WIP-limit controls, continuous-flow metrics, and no fixed sprint boundary. The models can coexist across different projects in the same workspace, so a scrum delivery team and a kanban support team can both work inside Strkr Projects with their own conventions.
What about time tracking?
Strkr Projects ships native time tracking at the issue level with start-stop timer and manual entry. Time entries carry category (billable, internal, support, admin), rate (from the user profile or per-engagement rate), and specific metadata for finance integration. The finance workflow pulls time entries into the Products module for invoicing against the deal. For teams running Harvest, Toggl, or Clockify today, the migration pulls historical time data for continuity.
How does Strkr AI work inside Projects?
Strkr AI assistant has specific Project context available. Users can ask questions, for example about what is at risk on the Acme engagement, and the AI will reason across the open issues, the sprint-goal progress, the time-burned-versus-estimated ratio, the specific CRM signals (deal size, renewal date, specific communications in the last 30 days). The AI can suggest specific status updates, draft client-facing summaries, flag specific risk patterns from the historical data. The AI stays inside the tenant data boundary and does not train on customer content.
No sales call, no migration consultant, no four-month implementation. Enter your card, get 14 days of the full Pro tier, cancel any time before day 14 with zero charge. Spin up a workspace, import your CSV, and have something useful before lunch.
We use cookies.
Essential cookies keep the site working. If you accept, we also enable Google Analytics
so we can see which pages help and which don't. Reject to opt out entirely. Details in our
Privacy Policy.
