Next-Gen, team managed projects are great, but there are a few simple changes that would make them dramatically better, like the ability to see all child issues in the roadmap view, and date-ranges for all the child issues on the roadmap (https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JSWCLOUD-18668).
These are terrible names. They imply "how" the projects will be used rather than their functionality levels. Strange direction for Jira to go by implicitly telling people how to use their functionality and project types. It will be very confusing from a company training and change management perspective.
@[deleted] , I'm not a huge fan of the names either. While I won't say they are terrible I would personally like something different. Of course names are so subjective it is hard to get them right for the masses much less everyone. For me I see them from an administration perspective, something like this...
Having said that there is also the ever increasing features being added to TMPs so in time "Simplified" might not apply. The point is, time could challenge my naming perspective since I believe that in time NG/TMPs will stretch the boundaries of "simple".
Regardless of the names, while I still don't use TMPs much they continue to grow on me and I'm finding UCs for them.
Your suggested names are exactly the same as those I suggested internally when we were discussing it. I backed off the "advanced" because I didn't want to imply that one was better than the other.
Be sure to evaluate Next-Gen/Team projects carefully before committing: it's missing a LOT of features that are +1'ed like mad in the backlog with seemingly very little progress. If it doesn't do what you need it to do today, don't bet on new features coming available.
I like the new names. I think it would also be helpful if you added a description within the create project flow that appears right when you pick the type (at least temporarily):
Team Managed: Limited features with all administration contained within the project.
Note: Cannot convert from Team Managed to Company managed at this time
Company Managed: Full Jira feature-set. Most Admin is done at the site level and requires full Jira Admin privileges (still can be shared by multiple people and Project Admins can be delegated)
Or maybe Team Managed should be named Reduced Fat
Some people prefer Reduced Fat while others do not and always want the original. You may decide to try it in certain scenarios, but you will definitely know it is different and does not have as much in it (but it does have more sugar).
Rising Stars are recognized for providing high-quality answers to other users. Rising Stars receive a certificate of achievement and are on the path to becoming Community Leaders.
Great stuff. Thanks for the update, Bree. One thing we have been trying to achieve is along the lines of cloning a projects ... We have managed to do so (via the Jira Cloud REST API) but many new schemes are created and we would like to control that. I dont see that the templates would aid in this .. but what are the plans around that where 'custom templates' across all schemes, etc would work?
Is there a chance to have a short table summary for all Jira names and variants.
I am using Jira "nextgen" for my personal family and targets management while at work we have also few variants of JIRA on-prem and cloud, are all those considered Jira classic?
Get someone to check spelling and grammar of posts if not a native speaker.
My big issue isn't with naming or the limitations of one versus the other. My big issue is that all the product states show up when trying to use filters. So its really annoying when states from jira service desk show up in a search that is on a dev board with many fewer states.
we are working toward a world where the only fundamental difference between team-managed and company-managed projects will be how they are administered
This sounds great and gives hope that we will finally be able to have multiple boards in team-managed projects.
What a great update. Now, when I need to search for anything related to these types of projects, instead of using "classic" or "next-gen" keywords, I will have to use "classic, company-managed, company managed, CMP" and vice versa for the second king. This it really helpful!
@Bree Davies as Yatish and a few others mentioned, it would be great if we could control the templates (decide the exact schemes that build in Company Managed projects). Or at least a way to disable certain things from building automatically.
When someone uses a template today, it creates a mess for the Admins. We never want new fields created and the workflows are going to be completely different from anything that you have setup. Every scheme ends up needing to be edited. We always copy from an existing project and then go through and copy those schemes to split it out for different needs.
We could really use two new additional options:
Copy existing project, but make new schemes (so that we have shells in the proper naming convention)
Setup new schemes with nothing in them (no underlying screens or workflows or fields) - it would be really cool if you could select from the existing issue types that you want at this stage and it will automatically build out Issue Type Schemes with separate Create/View/Edit screens
Your templates will never be perfect and they shouldn’t try to be. They are good for a brand new Jira user, but us existing users already know what we want in the majority of cases. You should just create the shells that we need to customize according to our needs at a much faster pace. Until we can control them, we would prefer to start from scratch over the templating experience (it is a bummer that you removed that possibility).
Thanks for this @Bree Davies, this seemingly semantic change has given significant clarity to the essence of both, at least enough for me to revisit the NextGen aka TMP for a second look at it. Classic aka CMP still seems to me more intuitive though, but then am told - always keep an open mind.. ;)
140 comments