Quarterly reviews don’t have to be a three-hour tour through 47 charts and a collective shrug. A quarter is long enough to see real patterns—and short enough to change course—if your report tells a story your team believes. This guide outlines how to design a quarterly report in Jira that identifies bottlenecks, demonstrates changes, and informs decisions. Along the way, I’ll show where Time in Status app slots in as the quiet engine that turns issue history into honest timing.
(Yes, caffeine still helps. But not as much as a clean status map.)
A good Q report answers three questions clearly:
Most reports stumble because they try to be everything: every project, every chart, every metric. The result is a data buffet with no meal. The antidote: fewer metrics, tighter definitions, calendar-aware timing, and a straightforward narrative.
Rule of thumb: If a director can skim your report in five minutes and say, “So we’re waiting on approvals 40% of the time—that’s our lever,” you nailed it.
Counting tells you how much you touched. Timing tells you how efficiently the value moved.
Ticket counts go up and down with scope. Timing tells you why.
Not an overhaul—just enough guardrails to ensure Q reports are comparable from quarter to quarter.
The app reads your issue history and applies your Start/Pause/Stop definitions and work calendars. No timers, no manual logs—just the math you intended.
1. Where did we actually lose time?
Use: Time in Status + Status Groups (e.g., Active, Waiting, Review, Approval).
What you’ll see: A clear split of Active vs. Waiting across the quarter.
Outcome: “Waiting for Approval is 38% of lead time → batch reviews on Tue/Thu & add a clear entry checklist.”
2. Are we getting faster—and more predictable?
Use: Average Time (per status) + Time in Status per Date (trend).
What you’ll see: Cycle time trend and variance (not just a single average).
Outcome: “Cycle time ↓ 14% and variance ↓ 22% after WIP limits → keep the policy.”
3. Who (or what) is overloaded?
Use: Assignee Time and a Pivot (Assignee × Statuses × Work Item Type).
What you’ll see: Effort distribution in business hours, not hunches.
Outcome: “Two agents handle 70% of P1 time → create an on-call rotation and cross-train.”
4. Is rework hurting quality or trust?
Use: Status Count (reopened counts) + Transition Count (ping-pong loops like Dev↔QA or Tech Progress↔Waiting for Customer).
What you’ll see: Where loops happen and how often.
Outcome: “Reopens dropped 40% after we added acceptance criteria to the template.”
5. Did our change actually help?
Use: Label or version to tag the change (e.g., label = automation_triage), then compare Average Time and Time in Status per Date in matched windows.
What you’ll see: Before/after impact without spreadsheet archaeology.
Outcome: “Auto-triage cut Waiting for Support from 10h → 5.8h; expand to all P2 queues.”
Scrum teams: the Sprint Performance Report (Cloud & Data Center) rolls up velocity (last 7 sprints), completion rate, workload by assignee, and scope change—a perfect chapter in your quarterly narrative.
Name the dashboard “Q3 Flow Health” and pin it. Tiny bit of ceremony, big payoff.
Quarterly reporting should feel like a conversation, not a compliance ritual. My take: one page of flow metrics, a few honest notes on why things moved the way they did, and one experiment everyone can support. Keep the spotlight on lead time, cycle time, and the working‑vs‑waiting split—data, not drama.
If you’ve mapped Start/Pause/Stop and set work calendars, you’re 90% there. Time in Status reads your issue history and does the math you intended, so the report shows how work really moved—without spreadsheets breeding overnight.
What you can do next:
Iryna Komarnitska_SaaSJet_
Product Marketer
SaaSJet
Ukraine
10 accepted answers
0 comments