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.
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,
Good question @Alan Tragarz
The automation only pertains to one project, so if they are working across lots of projects, they could choose if they should be configured in the automation rule or not.
If they are working with.creating content for lots of teams within the one Jira project, i would recommend they are not configured for the automation and would continue to manually add the relevant team to any content they create (based on the nature of their role).
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?
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 @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).
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?
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"
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.
Hi @Alan Tragarz Sorry, i was talking Cloud.
OK, I think the reason you can't see the Story points option is due to the Plan not being configured for Story Points in the Estimation section.
Also, might be worth checking that the Teams in the plan are set up as Scrum teams and not Kanban (as Kanban assumes no story points.....rightly or wrongly)
Hi everyone, We’re always looking at how to improve Confluence and customer feedback plays an important role in making sure we're investing in the areas that will bring the most value to the most c...
Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!Find an event
Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!
Unfortunately there are no Community Events near you at the moment.Host an event
You're one step closer to meeting fellow Atlassian users at your local event. Learn more about Community Events