Add possibility to show a "Selected Field" for the "Grouped by" Type in the Board view

[Genet Schneider]

Is there a plan to add support for showing Selected Field in the Board view for the Grouped by Type?

- This feature would make it easier to digest the Board view at a glance if setup correctly. 

- In the example below, the board view would make it easier to understand what greater "Outcome" (as an example field to show) do the grouped problems ladder up to

Example:

[Olga Springer · Accepted solution]

Hey. 

Thank you for sharing this. At the moment, we’re not working on this type of functionality.

While I understand how it could be implemented from a technical perspective, it’s not entirely clear from the example provided how meaningful it would be in practice.

Could you share more context? For instance, do you have any real-life scenarios or data that illustrate how this would make the board easier to interpret in specific situations? If you don't want to share it publicly, feel free to send it using the in-app "Feedback" button. 

Olga Springer
Senior Product Manager, Jira Product Discovery

[Genet Schneider]

Thanks for the follow-up, Olga.

Here's one example: Individual problems are grouped by strategic bets using the "Level 1" connection field. Each bet has a target outcome stored as a field on that Level 1 issue, like "Achieve +15% ARR" or "Improve customer health score by +Y%".

When I open the Board view grouped by Level 1, I see:

Big big bet #1 (2)

Big big bet #2 (2)

I can see which problems sit under each bet, but not what outcome that bet is driving toward at a glance. To get that context, I have to click into each Level 1 issue one by one.

The option to pick a field from the grouping entity and show it inline on the group header row. The same view would then read:

Big big bet #1 (2) · Achieve +15% ARR

Big big bet #2(2) · Improve customer health score by +Y%

I've attached a mockup showing how this could look in practice.

This can be useful in:

1. During prioritization, product teams need to see which outcome each cluster of problems ladders up to. Without it, the board shows what we're working on but not why

2. When presenting to leadership, the board should tell a strategy-to-execution story at a glance. The grouping structure is already there. The strategic context that gives it meaning is not.

3. It helps catch misalignment early. If a group of problems sits under a bet targeting "+15% ARR" but the problems listed are about customer health, that disconnect should be visible without clicking into anything.

The grouping feature already does the hard work of connecting problems to strategy. This would surface the why alongside the what, which is the part people actually need when making decisions.

Happy to share more detail through the in-app feedback button if useful.

[Genet Schneider]

Thanks for the follow-up, Olga.

Here's an example: Individual problems are grouped by strategic bets using the "Level 1" connection field. Each bet has a target outcome stored as a field on that Level 1 issue, like "Achieve +15% ARR" or "Improve customer health score by +Y%".

When I open the Board view grouped by Level 1, I see:

Big big bet #1 (2)

Big big bet #2 (2)

I can see which problems sit under each bet, but not what outcome that bet is driving toward. To get that context, I have to click into each Level 1 issue one by one.

The option to pick a field from the grouping entity and show it inline on the group header row. The same view would then read:

Big big bet #1 (2) · Achieve +15% ARR

Big big bet #2 (2) · Improve customer health score by +Y%

I've attached a mockup showing how this could look in practice.

This can be useful in:

1. During prioritization, product teams need to see which outcome each cluster of problems ladders up to. Without it, the board shows what we're working on but not why. People end up toggling between the board and individual issues constantly to get that context.

2. When presenting to leadership, the board should tell a strategy-to-execution story at a glance. The grouping structure is already there. The strategic context that gives it meaning is not.

3. It helps catch misalignment early. If a group of problems sits under a bet targeting "+15% ARR" but the problems listed are about customer health, that disconnect should be visible without clicking into anything.

The grouping feature already does the hard work of connecting problems to strategy. This would surface the why alongside the what, which is the part people actually need when making decisions.

Happy to share more detail through the in-app feedback button if useful.