How do you actually keep Epic ranking in sync with your teams?

Genuine question for anyone running scaled setups — SAFe, LeSS, or just "we have a lot of Epics and a lot of teams."

I keep running into the same problem at client sites: Portfolio ranks their Epics, but that ranking never actually reaches the teams. The team backlog has its own rank, and within a couple of sprints the two are completely out of sync. Nobody can tell you whether the team is actually working on what Portfolio considers #1.

The "official" workaround has been the same since 2013 — go to Plan Mode, filter by Epic, select all child issues, drag them up, repeat for every Epic, every time the ranking changes. With 20+ Epics that's not a workaround, that's a part-time job.

Advanced Roadmaps made ranking "independent" across hierarchy levels a while back. I get why — teams didn't want Portfolio reshuffling their sprint. But it also killed any automatic connection between "this Epic is our top priority" and "the Stories under it should probably be worked on first."

WSJF helps on the scoring side, sure. But it doesn't solve the propagation problem. You can score your Epics perfectly and still have teams grinding through Stories from the lowest-ranked Epic because that's just where their board rank ended up.

At one client I got asked to solve exactly this problem. My solution was building 2 things with ScriptRunner on DC:

A nightly scheduled job that reads the portfolio board, respects swimlane order (dedicated swimlanes rank before the default lane), factors in status priority (in progress before ready), then walks the hierarchy down through issue links to the child Features and writes a calculated rank into a custom number field. That number field drives board sorting — every morning the teams open a backlog that actually reflects what Portfolio decided. Issues that drop off the board get their rank automatically cleared so nothing stale lingers.

And a custom REST endpoint with the exact same logic, accessible to admins and product owners - so when someone re-prioritizes mid-day, they trigger a sync right away instead of waiting until tomorrow morning.

Works well when it works. But let's be honest, the script is ~400 lines of Groovy that talks to undocumented board APIs, parses swimlane JSON, handles multiple fallback methods when Atlassian changes their REST responses (which they do), and silently breaks if someone renames a status or reconfigures the board. Every Jira upgrade is a coin flip on whether the Greenhopper endpoint still returns what you expect. It's custom code on DC, it needs someone who understands it to maintain it, and it obviously won't survive a Cloud migration.

So — how are you handling this? Manual process? ScriptRunner? Automation rules? Jira Align Pull Rank? Something completely different?

Do your teams even care about Epic rank, or do they just work off their own backlog and ignore what Portfolio says?

Not trying to sell anything here but I've been dealing with this at multiple enterprise clients and for the longest time I was convinced there was no clean native solution.

Curious how others handle it and appreciate your insights.

Best Regards
cF

3 comments

Comment

@C_ Faysal_CFcon_ good question, and one that trips up many scaled teams.

We handle this during refinement & Sprint planning; the PO, delegating to a Delivery Manager / Tech Lead where needed, takes the portfolio level priorities and communicates those to the development team through backlog refinement. It's a manual process, but it's why we have POs.

Like • C_ Faysal_CFcon_ likes this

Hi @Stephen_Lugton ,

Thanks for your input

I appreciate you sharing how you approach this in your organization.

I agree that in many setups alignment is primarily achieved through refinement and sprint planning, with the PO translating portfolio priorities into team backlog order. That works well when communication cycles are tight and the scale is manageable.

The friction I kept observing in larger environments was more structural than procedural. Even with clear communication, Jira ranking is maintained at board level. Over time, portfolio priority and actual backlog rank tend to drift unless someone continuously realigns them.

That recurring divergence between strategic intent and system state was what initially led me to explore automation. The goal wasn’t to replace process ownership, but to reduce manual synchronization effort and ensure that the backlog consistently reflects portfolio order.

The exploration started with scripting and later evolved toward more native approaches within the Atlassian ecosystem — but the original trigger was exactly this use case.

Out of curiosity: in scaled environments, do you rely purely on process discipline to prevent rank drift, or have you introduced additional structural mechanisms?

Best regards,
cF

We had a highly technical CTO who really pushed additional structure, but what we found was that we got less involvement from people since they relied on the structure, and then he left and a more business value minded CTO took his place. He made the point that the lowered involvement from following the structure meant that the people re-prioritising work weren't getting feedback on changes in priority and how that would affect delivery, so we went back to a more people involved approach. With AI tools becoming more widely used who knows what approach we'll take next!

Hi @Stephen_Lugton ,
That's a really valuable observation and honestly one that doesn't get discussed enough.

I think the distinction matters between tooling that makes decisions for people versus tooling that makes existing decisions visible. What you're describing sounds like the former: the structure replaced the conversation, and when the person behind it left, nobody understood the "why" anymore. That's a classic automation
anti-pattern.

The approach I've been gravitating toward is different in intent. it's not about removing the PO from the loop or auto-prioritizing work. It's about ensuring that when Portfolio says "Epic A is #1," the team backlog actually reflects that, without someone manually dragging 200 stories every Monday morning. The PO still owns the
conversation. The tooling just prevents silent drift between what was agreed and what the board shows.

Your point about feedback loops is spot on though. If teams stop questioning priority because "the system handles it," you've lost something important. Any solution in this space needs to amplify process ownership, not replace it.

Curious to see where the AI angle takes this. there's definitely room for smarter prioritization signals without taking humans out of the loop.

Best regards,
cF

I don't think we have anyone who would be willing to manually drag 200 stories around on a Monday morning, but just using filters to only show the highest priority (at that point in time) epic(s) allows only priority items to be visible for refinement / planning.

Hi @C_ Faysal_CFcon_ Sadhana here, from Easy Agile.

You've hit on one of the messiest problems in scaled agile. That disconnection between portfolio priorities and team execution is real, and your ScriptRunner solution shows just how complex the workarounds have become.

The core issue is that Jira treats Epic ranking and Story ranking as separate concerns, which makes sense for team autonomy but breaks the priority signal flow. Most organisations we work with end up in exactly the same place you describe - teams working stories from low-priority Epics because that's where the backlog rank landed.

We built Programs specifically to solve this coordination challenge. It maintains that priority connection between portfolio level and team execution through PI Planning sessions and cross-team dependency tracking. Rather than fighting Jira's ranking system, it creates a coordination layer where portfolio priorities translate into clear team commitments during planning sessions.

The key insight we had is that this is actually a coordination and communication problem. Teams need to understand why certain work matters more than other work, and not just inherit a rank order from above.

You'll find Programs here: https://marketplace.atlassian.com/apps/1222442/easy-agile-programs-for-jira. We offer a free 30-day trial.

Worth exploring whether explicit coordination sessions solve your synchronisation challenge better than automated ranking propagation. Happy to discuss via hello@easyagile.com if you'd like to dig into the coordination approach.

Hi @Sadhana_Easy Agile ,

thanks for the thoughtful response!

You're right that this is a real pain point for scaled organisations. Where I'd push back slightly is on the framing.

I think it's actually two distinct problems that need different solutions:

1. Coordination & Communication - "Why does this work matter?" That's the PI Planning / Big Room Planning space, and Programs does a solid job there. No argument.

2. Real-time priority signal integrity - "Is my backlog actually reflecting portfolio priorities right now?" This is a system problem, not a ceremony problem. When a PM re-ranks Epic #3 above Epic #7 at 2pm on a Tuesday, the 47 stories underneath need to reflect that shift immediately - not at the next PI Planning session in 8 weeks.

My Rank Cascading approach is deliberately automated because priority drift happens continuously, not in quarterly increments. Waiting for the next coordination session to propagate a priority change means teams are executing stale priorities in between.

The way I see it: PI Planning sets the strategic intent, automated rank cascading maintains signal fidelity in the day-to-day execution. They're complementary, not competing. one is a planning rhythm, the other is a live system guarantee.

Appreciate you jumping in on the discussion!

ps:

"You'll find Programs here: https://marketplace.atlassian.com/apps/1222442/easy-agile-programs-for-jira. We offer a free 30-day trial."

thats a different app there behind that link