You're on your way to the next level! Join the Kudos program to earn points and save your progress.
Level 1: Seed
25 / 150 points
1 badge earned
Challenges come and go, but your rewards stay with you. Do more to earn more!
What goes around comes around! Share the love by gifting kudos to your peers.
Keep earning points to reach the top of the leaderboard. It resets every quarter so you always have a chance!
Join now to unlock these features and more
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,
Sure @Daniel Engzell
Trigger = Issue Created
Condition is; User Condition (where Reporter = the team members)
Action = Edit issue (editing the team field)
Note: Use the If/Else condition if you want the one rule to handle more than one team (as below)
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).
I am struggling with this concept. We are leveraging the Cloud version of Plans and of Jira Software Premium.
Attempting to create a Scrum Board based on the Teams field:
Project = ABC OR "Team[Team]" = 227 ORDER BY Rank ASC
"Team[Team]" = 227 ORDER BY Rank ASC
is prohibiting my users from creating or completing Sprints.
Am I missing something?
I have even adjusted the permission scheme to allow anyone (jira-users) the ability to Manage Sprints.
Any help or insight is appreciated.
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)