Two different approaches to Voting?

Kate

My organisation is currently utilising JPD and have found there are two different ways in which groups would like to utilise voting.

1) The recommended manner using votes as like your $100 test, asking decision makers to assign a number of votes against an idea as a means to understand its priority in relation to others. This works well with the way JPD voting is currently set up.

However, we are frequently being asked to facilitate a different way of using votes (which doesn't really work with the current set-up):

2) Provide decision makers the ability to vote once (either yes or no) on an idea. The hope would be if you have a group of decision-makers/Stakeholders view all the ideas present, an idea can be commissioned for prioritisation/delivery once it reaches a quorum of votes. Comments against votes can help sway others votes or provide insight as to why a stakeholder has voted the way they did. I haven't managed to find a way to hack the current set-up to get a working version of this that works the way I want.

 

I guess I'm asking if the second way of using Votes is a good use case for the JPD team to consider enabling? For those on the Atlassian JPD crew, would you consider this?

Tanguy Crusson

Hi @Kate - you are right, today JPD only works with #1.

But #2 is a totally valid use case. Anything that gets good conversations going for what the priorities should be is fair game. 

It's not currently possible natively, exactly like that, though. We do have an idea we use to track improvements to the voting feature - I'll add your feedback to it. I can't promise anything in terms of timing yet though. 

That being said, there is a workaround: it's actually why we built the "reactions" field type. You can tell people to use 👍, 👎, 🤨 or 🔥 to express their opinions about an idea, and add comments if they want to say more. You can't really enforce which reactions get used, but with some ground rules it can work