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; } } }

JPD Fields - Context for Global fields

Kate

Posting in the hope someone might have an answer or that it might be on the JPD roadmap somewhere….

I'm currently in the process of refreshing my org's series of JPD spaces following an upgrade to Premium. We're keen to utilise the 'Roadmaps' option to display different spaces work against each other and as such have set up a series of Global fields.
However with these Global fields, a problem has arisen that while the metrics are the same, our different teams want to be able to include minor language differences or documentation links in the description of those fields (within their own JPD spaces) to ensure that the right values are understood/selected. Is there any chance that this might be on the runway for JPD in the future?

If anyone has any advise or workarounds that they can suggest, I'd be grateful to hear them

Accepted answers

Jens Schumacher - Released.so

I can't speak for the JPD team, but IMHO it seems highly unlikely that you will be able to make space level customisations to the description of a global field. Probably not a very common use-case.

You could explore third party tools like Released Hub or BetterBoard, which allow you to combine multiple JPD spaces in a single view, without the need for standardized global fields.

Hope this helps,
Jens

Andrea Robbins

Sadly you can’t have contexts like you can in Jira or JSM in JPD. I recommend Atlassian respond to the question if it is on the roadmap for the future! I would be weary although it is a common thing to have different definitions for global fields how that would affect your global views. If the field is the same but definition is different across spaces can you really trust a global view with a global field that means different things to different people? It’s like comparing apples to oranges. Just food for thought but not judging or anything I implement JPD for clients and sometimes it’s a necessary evil.

Tanguy Crusson

Hi there, thanks for the feedback - it's not something we have on the roadmap currently and I can't think of a way to make this work. To keep it simple for now global means global (shared by every space), and it's either that or space level config

All comments

Jens Schumacher - Released.so

Andrea Robbins

Kate

if the field is the same but definition is different across spaces can you really trust a global view with a global field that means different things to different people?

I get that it's a weird ask 😅 I have a lot of disparate units/groups using JPD and we're trying to build an overarching 'Roadmap' for ideas that fit a particular requirement for oversight or governance. The use case for what I'm asking for is a rating field that indicates how many Unit-specific Strategic Priorities an idea fulfils and the individual units want to have different Strategic documents linked in their JPD projects for guidance 😫.

'tis the fun of trying to align an environment already in play…..

Matthew Sinclair

Yeah echoing the others sentiments.

Also need to keep in mind JPD is a team managed platform - its designed to be an island (albeit open) to itself - they don't like playing with others basically (dashboards/etc) - sharing resources is a tough thing to do with a tool that isn't "Company Managed" - so things like field schemes and customization is going to be very limited.

May change in the future but my Magic 8 Ball says "not likely."

Discovered for example that there's no such thing as a "paragraph" field in JPD - outside the description (sorry - "Idea Description") - always something with JPD.

Andrea Robbins

If I understand correctly, they will all have a number/count of the strategic priorities the idea works towards, but each team's strategies are different, so the link is different. I think that makes perfect sense to me as the definition of the field is the same, but the strategic priorities are different as teams might have team goals. Have you considered using the platform experience Atlassian goals?

Matthew Sinclair

Good suggestion! But Goals/Projects is usually anchored by Jira (Not JPD) Epic's or other higher hierarchy tickets/issues isn't?

Kate

It's on the 'To Do' list, but there's some push-back around change fatigue.
Considering that the option of tweaking the field contexts isn't available, I might have to push more strongly for us to accept the pain and move into Goals sooner rather than later. We would still have to figure out a way to "Count" the goals for scoring though

Tanguy Crusson

Jens Schumacher - Released.so

Could you link to a single page, but allow teams to provide links to their unique guidance documents there? Not ideal, but probably as good as it gets without using space specific fields.

Kate

Thanks for replying Tanguy.
Totally understand, its almost like I need two description fields on a single field, one that's global and one that can contain any space-specific details. Talking with the other users above, I can see its a bit of a unicorn request and could potentially cause more issues than assistance. Might have to work more on the human part of the issue 😉

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Quick Links

Find more posts tagged with

jpd

global-fields