nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Using 'Team' field (from Adv Roadmap plan) as filter criteria for boards Jira (pros/cons/guidance)

david.hiatt

Our instance of Jira is now configured so that Teams defined at the Adv Roadmap plan level are visible in issue detail of their source issues back in Jira.

A lot of our teams have done things like created components to organize boards around, but those components are basically metadata to proxy for 'team' level organization.

With board data sources in Advanced Roadmaps we get 'team' definitions, that now can show up back in Jira.

So whether there is value in basing our boards more directly on these team values is what I struggle with. My desire for simplicity makes me think it potentially could be good to do so, but the factors that give me pause include:

1-Teams have to be 'shared' at plan level to show in issue detail.

2-Is there anything 'circular' about having teams defined by Adv Roadmap plans based on boards, and then having boards based on those teams? (system logic I haven't gotten my head around)

3-Must always remember any changes modeled in plan related what issues teams work must be saved back to Jira, if this is how the teams are going to work.

Are any of these significant enough obstacles that should steer us away from organizing filters and boards around 'team' field in Jira, or are there other considerations I'm not even seeing? These things are things on my mind. Thanks for any thoughts.

Comments

Curt Holley

HI @david.hiatt

Nothing to fear, it is a good idea.

What I have seen happening at my site is, Boards being filtered by the new Team field, then those boards being used as issue sources for the creation of plans. This keeps everything based around the concept of team (which is great).

Other cools elements to this,

shared teams can be seen (and used) by all.
the ability to incorporate team capacity into your plans (see my answer here for more detail Solved: Advanced Roadmaps - capacity planning cross projec... (atlassian.com) )
Add an automation rule so that, when a team member goes to log a new jira story, issue (whatever) the team field is populated for them. Thus ensuring there work always is visible on the board filtered by their team
Frees up Components to be used in a more pure fashion (for actual components)

Dave

Hi @david.hiatt ,

@Curt Holley has done a great job in answering your question, but I'm interested to know if you're using Server or Cloud ? And in particular if you're using Cloud whether or not you're using Atlassian Teams (see https://support.atlassian.com/atlassian-account/docs/what-is-an-atlassian-team/ )

I'm also particularly interested in the sort of value you'd like to see leveraged from a tighter association between board and team. Do you typically have one board per team in your organisation?

Regards,

Dave

david.hiatt

@David Tieman

david.hiatt

Thank you Curt!

Team Capacity is a really good feature/view.

How extensively we share teams or not - still determining.

Helpful answer, appreciated.

david.hiatt

Thanks Dave!

Server, not cloud, currently.

I would say one board per team is common, but the flexibility to define boards otherwise too is good, so there is not a 'standard' per se. Where we do use the approach of board by team I was just testing whether using the 'Teams' field directly as filter criteria is a good idea, or not.

Thanks,

Dave

Thanks @david.hiatt .... well, I personally use the Teams field in the JQL filters that I use for my boards. I think it's a good way of doing it. I've seen other customers use label or component fields, but I think this provides better context and obviously provides additional value within Advanced Roadmaps plans (i.e. for capacity based planning).

Regards,

Dave

Alan Tragarz_twgqa9

Our org has multiple teams using a single project and each team has its own board (cloud version). Some drawbacks that I have encountered;

1. Filters dont allow sorting by team.

2. Confluence macros/gadgets dont display teams even though the jira issue filter shows this field as an option.

3. I am able to define a Plan that shows epics each team is working on but I cannot show that plan in Confluence.

4. Havent played with roadmaps but maybe those can organize work around teams?

Curt Holley

Yeah, 1 and 2 are annoying. I know Atlassian are working on making the Team field more flexible, but I'm not certain it will resolve these or not.

3 can be done now on cloud at least (via a macro). Looks like it is available on Server/DC as well? Sharing and exporting plan data | Advanced Roadmaps for Jira Data Center and Server 3.29 | Atlassian Documentation

4....not sure. Would depend on the context of "organize work around teams"

Daniel Engzell

Hi Curt,

Can you please share the details from your automation rule mentioned above?

Cheers

Curt Holley

Sure @Daniel Engzell

Trigger = Issue Created

Condition is; User Condition (where Reporter = the team members)

Action = Edit issue (editing the team field)

Note: Use the If/Else condition if you want the one rule to handle more than one team (as below)

Screenshot 2021-05-26 095754.png

Alan Tragarz_twgqa9

Can a roadmap show Epics with their related issue types along with % completion of the specific epic? Also can the roadmap show not only To Do or In Progress but Done items as well?

Curt Holley

HI @Alan Tragarz

Yes, there are two fields you can select, "Progress (Story Points)" & "Progress (Issue count). both of these will show a % completion rate (of an Epic's Stories amalgamated points) See Initiative below (with points from Stories 2 layers down the Hierarchy)

Yes, you can decide how long you show "Done" content on your plan. Go to:

Configuration/Exclusion Rules and set the length of time you'd like "done" issues to remain on the plan.