Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Sign up Log in

Earn badges and make progress

You're on your way to the next level! Join the Kudos program to earn points and save your progress.

Deleted user Avatar
Deleted user

Level 1: Seed

25 / 150 points

Next: Root


1 badge earned


Participate in fun challenges

Challenges come and go, but your rewards stay with you. Do more to earn more!


Gift kudos to your peers

What goes around comes around! Share the love by gifting kudos to your peers.


Rise up in the ranks

Keep earning points to reach the top of the leaderboard. It resets every quarter so you always have a chance!


Come for the products,
stay for the community

The Atlassian Community can help you and your team get more value out of Atlassian products and practices.

Atlassian Community about banner
Community Members
Community Events
Community Groups

Titles or Forms in Request

We have incorporated impact assessments into our project-level requests for JPD.  However, we are addressing simply by adding additional tables.  This has led to a few instances where two people were working on updating impacts at once, and one was overridden.  When we try to look at the history, the length of the Description field makes it extremely difficult to find the actual changes. 

I'm wondering if there is/could be a way to incorporate something to better support the additional information.  I know I can add a link to a Confluence File or some such thing, but being able to have a form filler, additional section, etc, so that the changes are compartmentalized and there is more sharing ability, would be amazing. 


I am expecting my team to request something similar in the future--there are multiple teams that would like to assess the impacts of an Idea. Keeping a log of who recommended what would be very helpful.

As an approach, to capturing this information, could there be an additional tab when viewing Idea details that could capture an 'impact assessor's analysis'? I hate suggesting a solution so early, but sometimes these kind of discussions better tease out the problem that we are trying to solve.

This is interesting because I and my team have encountered the same thing. I am thinking of a way around it by giving notes or comments first before updating the impacts. 

Still, I think that the best way to fix this is to add something like requiring a person tag to know who and when the adjustment is made.

Hermance NDounga
Atlassian Team
Atlassian Team members are employees working across the company in a wide variety of roles.
Apr 28, 2023

Hi Beau, 

I understand that you adding tables within the description of the idea, and then you are looking in the history tab to identify both the modification and the modification ( please let me know if it's not correct). 

Regarding the impact assessment, could you please share a bit more on the type of data that you would place in these tables? 

As a first thought, I think it might be more suitable to create dedicated fields (for any criteria or team) so you can both easily track the changes, who made them and use Jira Product Discovery custom formula capabilities to compute automatically these data and provide you with a score. 

I've recorded a loom to explain more in detail what I mean , and how it can help when you have multiple criterias, including numbers or text and multiple teams collaborating:



@Hermance NDounga thanks so much for the video! I really appreciate the time!  


In my case, the trouble I'm having is that JPD seems to be more friendly in how we evaluate impacts/costs of individual features than overall projects.   We use both, and I've spent a little bit of time working on impact scores, but when we get into projects I run into the following challenges; 

  • A project has 8-12 key features/deliverables, which require assessment from multiple teams
  • Those teams have differing levels of impact and dollars
  • My entry is the project, not the list of features (and I don't believe there's a hierarchy yet in JPD, so I can't easily separate them out)
  • The options we have - as you used - are visual based, and don't allow for aggregation. 

At a feature level, these things aren't really a problem, because they're easily translated and have very few inputs.  It's when we get larger that it gets more difficult. 

Other things I've considered doing to manage (to help state how I'm thinking about solving the problem, for context):

  • Create a form in Confluence, where I can have any number of forms, and have teams edit there.  Add a link to that form in my JPD ticket. I don't love that the information is "elsewhere" and teams need to toggle. Additionally, it makes a lot of clicking around when we review our board. 
  • I've evaluated templates and ticket settings to see if I could create a "2nd template" or a "2nd Description field"...  these would he
  • A feature request that would either allow me to create multiple forms and attach inside the JPD ticket 
  • A feature request that would allow more collaborative updates, so that if 2 people are in the ticket at the same time, the 2nd person does not overwrite the 1st. 

Again, thanks for the support so far!


Log in or Sign up to comment
AUG Leaders

Atlassian Community Events