Numeric Priority -KANBAN BOARD

[Joao Borges]

Hi there, is there a way to list tickets in KANBAN board in a numeric way. 

I am trying to organize the board at the moment and its hard to prioritize tickets just based on their place on each column. I would like to see a number next to it, so developers and dbas know which ticket to tackle first

Thanks 

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

Numbering issues would have to be done by going from top to bottom through each row and column.  The numbers wouldn't tell you anything more than where the card is on the board, which is what the board is already showing you.

The next ticket to tackle is the one at the top of the column that no-one else is working on.

[Joao Borges]

But how could i number them ? I dont want to update the summary or the ticket title. Is there a way to put a number on each ticket on the current board ?

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

You can't number the issues themselves.  Not because you can't physically do it, but because it is not really of any use.

• As soon as the board changes, you would have to re-number every issue. 
• And somehow store different numbers for each and every board. 
• And tell people what the different numbers need and somehow know which one(s) they are interested in
• And explain what happens when a board is quick-filtered

I think what I'm getting at is that numbering an issue according to its board position is not as useful as it sounds at first.

You could number them visually on a board by injecting some javascript, but that number would not be on the issues, and could be totally different on an issue when its displayed on another board.

I'm a bit stuck on what problem you're trying to solve with numbering the issues like this.  What's wrong with "the next one to tackle is the one at the top of the column".  That's (partly) what ranking is for.

[Joao Borges]

@Nic Brough -Adaptavist-  Numbering will be for developers to know which ticket they need to finish first. But i do understand your point,  " the next one to tackle is the one at the top of the column" . And yes, the numbers might be confusing and cause even more problems in the board. But I am trying to filter a swimlane to show priority tickets on top, but its not working

project = TECH AND component = "Business - New/Existing development" OR summary ~ business ORDER BY priority DESC     

Whats wrong with the query ? Should i open a different question for it ?

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

>Numbering will be for developers to know which ticket they need to finish first

But they should be finishing the issues assigned to them that are not done.  And if/when they finish all of those, then they go to the board and pick the one at the top of the to-do column.

You don't need numbering or ordering or rules.  Just pick the next one you can do.

I do not understand why you are trying to order a swimlane differently from the board of which it is a part.  The only reason I can see for trying to do that is that you have got your ranking of issues completely wrong.  Why are your developers not picking the next highest ranked issue to work on?

There is nothing wrong with your swimlane query, other than it is going to ignore the order-by because that's not what your board defines.

[wayne_burkett]

@Nic Brough _Adaptavist_  I can tell you why I want to do it (and maybe you can tell me if there's a better way): I have a big list of tickets and I know what order they should be worked on, but I don't want to find each issue on a board and drag it somewhere else. I already have all the tickets open in tabs, say, and I just want to assign the order numerically or via some other means. What I don't want to do is drag a bunch of stuff around on a board.

As soon as the board changes, you would have to re-number every issue. 

No! Re-ordering is fine. I just want a way to order the issues that isn't "find the issue on a board and drag it somewhere else." If somebody else drags the issue somewhere else to update its place in the order, then that's fine.

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

Ok, I don't think you've thought this through.

Let's say you decide you want to renumber by "assigning the order numerically".  

You will need to open each issue in turn, work out where it should be in your list, then look at the issue above and the issue below it, reading out their current numbers they have, work out a number in between, and then set that on your issue.  (If the two issues are right up against each other, you're going to need to do the same to make space for your first issue).

The rank can't be a simple number.  People don't want to work the way you're thinking, it's a nightmare, compared with drag and drop.

[wayne_burkett]

If something can be represented by order visually, then by definition it can be represented numerically. Dragging something to the third position implicitly makes what was in the third position into the fourth position. Similarly, if something currently has the number three and I give it the number two, instead, then implicitly I have changed the numeric position of every other item in the list.

Dragging and dropping is a visual representation of the exact numeric ordering I’m describing. The numbering is always there, whether Jira lets me see it or not.

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

Yes, it can, but you have not read the answer and comments above about the problems using numbers per board.

And, again, you can't just use simple numbers, even if you're working purely globally.  Your numbering scheme has to be more clever than that - in fact the ranking system used to use simple numbers.  It fails, horribly and miserably, when you've got more than a few hundred issues in the system, it doesn't scale for over a few thousand issues in a Jira, failing exponentially.  A single "simple" re-ordering from rank 100,000 to rank 2 because you've raised something urgent and want it near the top of the list could take hours.

So, yes, in theory, a direct edit could be done.  But you're going to have to do it with the complex numbering and comparisons I described.

[wayne_burkett]

I have in fact read them and found them lacking. I still don’t think I’m properly communicating what it is I want to do here. Let’s say I am on a particular issue and I want to put it into the third position. You’re telling me that I can go to a board, find that issue, and then drag it up to the third position without any problems. All I want to be able to do is achieve that exact same outcome without first navigating to a board and finding my issue on that board. That’s what I’m describing.

You might wonder how it is I can know that this issue should be in that specific relative position on the board without going to the board. And the answer to that is that I’m on these boards all day every day! I have lots of context in my head. I do not need to first navigate to a board in order to know that I want this particular issue in position three. Asking me to do that is infantilizing. The software is trying to be more helpful than it is capable of being. I know things that the software does not know. And I want to leverage that knowledge. When I’m on that issue I want to be able to immediately put it in the third position.

If you’re going to let me navigate to the board, visually find the issue, and then drag it into position three, then I don’t know what you gain by preventing me from doing that numerically.

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

>Let’s say I am on a particular issue and I want to put it into the third position.

Yes, I understand that

>You’re telling me that I can go to a board,

Or a backlog, but yes.

> find that issue, and then drag it up to the third position without any problems. All I want to be able to do is achieve that exact same outcome without first navigating to a board and finding my issue on that board. 

Fine.  I've told you how, you could, in theory, do that.  But nobody in their right mind wants to put in all that effort, so Atlassian have not implemented any way to do it.

Again, what you are suggesting is that it's easier to go to an issue, edit a number on it, while finding and reading the other two issues it should be between so you can work out what that number should be.

Why would you want to do it that way?

The usual reason people hate scrum is that they don't understand it.  The software constantly tells you that it knows better because you told it to.  It's basing that on the information you have put into it.   You do indeed know your needs better than the software, but you can't expect it to get it right if you don't tell it what they are.

[wayne_burkett]

Again, what you are suggesting is that it's easier to go to an issue, edit a number on it, while finding and reading the other two issues it should be between so you can work out what that number should be.

Why would you want to do it that way?

Aha! Here’s our disconnect. I don’t want/need to navigate to those other issues! I already know where I want this issue to be relative to those issues because I’m on these boards all day every day and I have a ton of knowledge in my head that I don’t need to be on the screen at that exact moment.

Again, dragging an item into position 3 is implicitly assigning the number 4 to what was in 3 previously. Similarly, assigning the integer 3 to an issue implicitly puts what was in that position into the fourth position. You don’t need to navigate to those other issues any more than you need to drag those other issues in order to update their positioning on the board. It’s implicit in assigning the other issue to position 3.

If you only have to drag one issue to put it in the third position, then you similarly only need to update the number on one issue to put it into that position.

I’m really trying to emphasize the isomorphism here. What I’m describing is literally the exact same thing as what you’re describing. But my way I can do it immediately from an issue. Your way requires navigating to a board, visually finding the issue I want to move, and then dragging it into position.

If you’re imagining any operation except the perfectly isomorphic operation (only numerically instead of visually), then you’re not imagining what I am.

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

Ah, I see, you haven't thought through what a rank is, and why it can't be a simple number.

You absolutely have to go read the two other issues to understand their number (unless you have an eidetic memory).

You are mixing up an apparent position with an absolute position and while you could do it with a 1:1 mapping, that does not work in real life.

Let me work with a simple example, let's ignore the complexities of different views (another reason simple numbers don't work), and volumes of change for now.

Let's take the list

1. ABC-123
2. DEF-456
3. BCD-789
4. ABC-456
5. DEF-789

That list has a simple 1:1 apparent:absolute positioning.  Let's say you decide ABC-456 needs to be in-between ABC-123 and DEF-456, your list is now:

1. ABC-123
2. ABC-456 (4)
3. DEF-456  (2)
4. BCD-789 (3)
5. DEF-789

The numbers in brackets are the old values you had for the order.  One edit of one issue has caused the editing of three issues.

Now imagine

1. ABC-123
2. DEF-456
3. BCD-789
4. ABC-456
5. DEF-789

        6-99,999...

        100,000. XYZ-100

That's 99,999 edits just to move XYZ-100 into position 2.  The processing time rises exponentially with volume of issues.

Your "it's just a simple number in a list" scheme can't work, and Atlassian got rid of it as fast as they could when they acquired the ranking stuff done that way.

So, now you can see why your simple numbers don't work, you can see that another scheme is needed.  Atlassian went with a Lexorank scheme, where you end up with ranking data like:

• 3000003vk7   ABC-123
• 3000003kv7   DEF-456
• 3000003kzv    BCD-789

The ranking "numbers" I've used there are maybe not in the right order, I don't know exactly how the Lexorank system works.  The ones I've seen in the database tend to be messier than those too.

So, now do you see why you'd need to look at the other two issues you want to rank between?  Plus understand exactly how the the ranking system does a "sort" so that you can work out a "number" between 3000003vk7 and 3000003kv7 ?

Now imagine the computer can do all of that for you - all it needs is for you to tell it where an issue should move to, between two others.  The easiest way to do that is to, well, drag it from one place to another in some sort of list view...