Portfolio and the confusion of issue linking: The real meaning of outward/inward dependencies

Julio Morimoto

We are just now starting to use Portfolio to manage a few projects and initiatives, but we haven't been able to correctly create a plan with linked Epics.

Historically, our Jira installation has its issue linking configured with the default:

• Outward: Depends on
• Inward: Is depended on by

Now that we have portfolio installed, we noticed that it's treating outward/inward relations in reverse. I noticed from this forum that the concept of issue linking is confusing (example).

In our case, Portfolio is only able to calculate Schedule dates correctly among dependent Epics when we reverse the dependency. We could workaround this by changing the names in the link description, but that would completely mess with the entire issue history we have.

I would appreciate any ideas on how to get around this or how to fix it.

EDIT: The official Jira documentation for issue linking provides examples that show the same link direction we have.

https://confluence.atlassian.com/adminjiraserver073/configuring-issue-linking-861253998.html

 

Julio Morimoto

We've found a way around this in a not-so-easy-to-find Portfolio option under Jira > System > Add-ons > Portfolio dependencies. This gives you the option to swap the dependency priority from what is configured in your Jira issue linking.

I cannot overstate how confusing the names outward/inward can be, especially when Jira needs to be used by groups whose English is not the first language. The concepts of inward/outward links can take the on the semantics of your choosing in whatever direction you want. You just need to maintain consistency within your own language and naming system.

One thing to pay attention to is how Portfolio is handling these links to calculate schedules automatically.