Objective field names and values not very SAFe - Category / Planned & Delivered value

[Lisa Schliker]

As we prepare to roll out Jira Align, we are hoping to use Team Objectives as part of PI Planning.  We have been working with our SAFe teams to train on best practices, but the field names and values within JA may cause some confusion.

• The Category field dropdown values are: Critical Path and Stretch Goal; would prefer Committed versus Uncommitted.
• The field names in JA are labeled: Planned Value and Delivered Value; would prefer Business Value and Actual Value.

[Allan Maxwell · Accepted solution]

Lisa, as you are probably already aware, many of the field labels and dropdowns values in Jira Align can be customized by the Jira Align Admin.  Unfortunately, the ones you highlighted do not appear to be among the values that can be changed.

Maybe you could submit an enhancement request?

[Lisa Schliker]

We are aware that many of the fields and dropdown values can be configured by our JA admin.  The fields I mentioned cannot be configured.

Would like to know how other SAFe folks address the discrepancy.  Do you still use the fields / values and address it with training?  

[Allan Maxwell]

Yes, training.

[Rae Gibbs]

@Lisa Schliker The difference in terminology is definitely an adjustment that needs to be made for those practicing SAFe but the functionality and concept is the same making it completely usable.  The Planned Value (or Business Value) is what is assigned during PI Planning.  The Delivered Value (or Actual Value) is what is assigned when the objective is completed.  For Stretch Goal (or Uncommitted) objectives, if the value is not achieved, it will not count against the team in the corresponding Progress by Objective report.  On the converse, if the value is achieved, they will receive the credit.  For Critical Path (or Committed) objectives, both planned and delivered are factored into the corresponding report.  As Allan mentioned, I normally just address the difference of terminology with users when training them on the tool but do not forego the benefit of utilizing this functionality.

[Lisa Schliker]

We like the functionality.  Just concerned that the different terminology may cause confusion / frustration with user adoption.  We do plan on addressing during training.

[Rae Gibbs]

We normally just address this so users know and move on.  I'm sure it may be annoying for some but I haven't seen this be a big topic of conversation when we cover it in training.

[Blakely Snyder]

For some reason Stretch has always been confusing for my Agile Teams and Critical Path has no meaning in our framework.  While training is an easy workaround, working with teams in different countries is challenging enough without having different terminology in training and tooling.  I vote to update these fields at the next logical opportunity.  It's not blocking world peace but it is adding confusion in my ARTs.

[Jess F-D]

Totally agree with Lisa and Blakely above, this isn't causing major blockers but it is something that could easily prevent confusion within my ART not to mention for new starters who have enough new terminology to contend with without having to also learn multiple terms for the same thing! 
It would be great to add these fields to the configurable terminology in the JA admin space. 

[Marcie Mierz]

is there an enhancement request that i can upvote?