I have a business group who wants to use a non standard issue type in the plan, called Feature. What are the cons in using an issue type that is not standard? Limitations? If I add it to the project configuration, will it be as useful and beneficial as a e.g. a story (a standard issue type)? Any help on this will be appreciated!
There's no limitations or cons for having another issue type in a project. The pros are usually quite simple - you can see at a glance what it is likely to contain without reading the detail. If you create feature at the standard issue level (not a sub-task type), it will work the same as any other type at that level (assuming it is set to use all the same schemes)
No, the Epic issue type is a special case, a system thing and there's a lot of code in Jira that assumes there is only one type of issue to be used as an epic (also, do not rename Epic - Jira Software works ok if you do, but some apps break in very interesting ways. This is likely to go away as part of the closer integration with Jira Align, but for now, don't rename it)
Hey @Nic Brough _Adaptavist_ , I wanted to follow up on this one. What about creating a hierarchical level in between Epic and Story. In SAFe, they have other "levels" such as Capability and Feature. Is it possible to create a new Advanced Roadmaps/Portfolio hierarchy level above Story?
So, I'm going to avoid the main question there.
SAFe defines Epic as being at a different level to Jira's Epic. Epics in SAFe are higher up.
Jira does not (yet) really allow you to rename Epics (you can, technically, but it breaks some stuff. This is changing soon). To match SAFe, you want to rename them as Features.
But. Yes, you are right, Portfolio/Advanced Roadmaps do indeed add layers. But not about story, they add them above Epics.