Platform
Where the engineering money went, without a timesheet.
Finance asks what proportion of engineering went into new product value. Engineering answers with a guess, because the alternative is asking everyone to log time and nobody wants that. Pacia derives the split from the work itself — what was built, what was maintained, what was fixed, what interrupted the plan.
- New product value
- 48%
- Maintenance
- 19%
- Defects & rework
- 12%
- Unplanned work
- 21%
- Trend vs previous quarter
- New value down 6 points
Any category opens to the specific work behind it.
What you can do with it
The quarterly answer
Effort split across categories for any period, per team or across the whole organisation. The closest honest equivalent to a P&L for engineering capacity.
Category drill-down
Any slice opens to the underlying work. When someone challenges the unplanned-work figure, you show them the unplanned work.
Trends across periods
The same split for the current period and the two before it, so a shift is visible as a shift rather than needing to be remembered.
Per-team comparison
Which teams are able to work on the roadmap and which are absorbing interruption. Usually the most surprising view on the platform.
Board and finance ready
Executives and finance colleagues read this directly under Pacia’s free-viewer model, rather than waiting for someone to prepare a version.
R&D reporting input
A defensible, systems-derived basis for the effort split that R&D reporting and capitalisation conversations depend on.
From delivered work to an investment answer
The useful part is not the chart. It is the path from source work, through rules your organisation confirms, to a category anyone can open and inspect.
From work delivered to an investment answer
- 1Pull requests + work itemsThe work that actually moved in the selected period
- 2Your confirmed rulesIssue types, labels and components mapped once
- 3Investment balanceNew valueMaintenanceDefectsUnplanned
- 4Open any categoryTrace the answer back to the work it counted
Pacia does not estimate an allocation from activity volume. It applies the classification your organisation confirms, and leaves a category unconfigured when the source data cannot support it.
How the split is derived
From delivery data, not self-reporting
Categories come from the work items and pull requests themselves, using the classification rules you configure, rather than from anyone logging hours.
Your classification, confirmed
What counts as maintenance, a defect or unplanned work is configured against your own issue types and rules. As everywhere else, unconfigured shows as unconfigured.
Scoped by team and organisation
Every figure is organisation-scoped and team-scoped. Members see their own teams; owners and admins see everything.
Traceable end to end
No figure on this page is a rolled-up estimate you cannot open. Each category drills to the issues and pull requests it counted.
Common questions
Is this accurate enough for capitalisation?
It gives a defensible, systems-derived effort split, which is a considerably stronger basis than the estimate most organisations currently use. Whether it satisfies a specific accounting standard is a question for your auditor, and we would rather say that than imply otherwise.
Do engineers have to categorise their own work?
No. Classification runs off rules applied to the work items and pull requests. The setup cost is agreeing the rules once, not a recurring task for the team.
What if our Jira does not distinguish maintenance from new work?
Then that part shows as unconfigured until you decide how to express it. Pacia will not invent a split. In practice most sites already encode it in issue types, labels or components and it is a short conversation.