🚀 Stop Fighting Jira’s Single-Assignee Limit — Assign Multiple Users Effortlessly

[GPT AddIns]

If you’ve ever tried to manage cross-functional projects in Jira, you’ve probably hit this frustrating wall: only one assignee per issue.

But in reality…

• Support tickets often require multiple people to work together.

• Agile stories can have frontend + backend devs assigned.

• Enterprise workflows involve cross-department collaboration.

Workarounds like subtasks, watchers, or labels are messy — and they don’t clearly show shared ownership or help you visualize workload.

That’s why I built GPT – Multiple Assignees 🛠️

• ✅ Add multiple assignees to a single issue with an easy user picker

• 📊 Visualize workload across boards, cards, and reports

• ⚡ No hacks, no clutter — just real multi-user assignment

Perfect for Agile, ITSM, and Enterprise teams that need true collaboration.

🔗 Check it out on the Atlassian Marketplace 

💬 Would love feedback from the Enterprise group — how would you use multiple assignees in your workflows?

[Bill Sheboy]

Greetings, Community Managers!

Please move this vendor marketing post from this product area to to the App Central discussion group: https://community.atlassian.com/forums/App-Central/gh-p/app-central

Thank you!

Kind regards,
Bill

[Dave Rosenlund _Trundl_]

Thanks, @Bill Sheboy  👍

[Marco Nowak]

I like the JIRA concept of having only one assignee per issue. It will create confusing having multiple assignees and in the worst case no one really feels responsible for the issue.

[GPT AddIns]

I appreciate you sharing your view on this.

For certain teams, keeping just one assignee is a great way to maintain a single, clear point of accountability. That approach can definitely help avoid confusion.

From my side, I’ve seen plenty of situations where the setup is different, especially in project management or product development where tasks often span multiple disciplines. One ticket might need both a backend and a frontend developer working in parallel, or a tech lead and support engineer tackling it together. In those cases, having the option for more than one assignee can simplify tracking and coordination without relying on extra subtasks or other workaround methods.

Thanks again for adding your perspective, it’s always interesting to see the variety of ways teams structure ownership in Jira.

[Marco Nowak]

Well...I understand your approach and some of our teams use technical users for their tasks as assignee - which I don`t support for sure ;-)

So they assign their issues to their technical user and all of them use an issue filter based on this user to see issues assigned to the team.

[GPT AddIns]

I get your point — every team has its own way of managing assignments. This app is simply designed for those who prefer a more direct multi-assignee approach without relying on workarounds like technical users and filters.

[Patrick S_ Stuckenberger]

na, this is not optimal. 

atlassian uses the one user one responsible person as concept. 

you also have the teams field, which will be further enhanced. 

[GPT AddIns]

Understood — Jira’s one-owner model works well for many teams. This app simply provides another option for those whose workflows benefit from multiple assignees. Different teams have different needs, and this is here for the ones who prefer that flexibility.

[Josh]

This feels like technical malpractice by enabling users to adopt poor practices.

• Assignee != Team
• Assignee != Watchers
• Assignee != Contributors

Without one person assigned, there is no clear accountability / responsibility. If everyone's responsible, nobody's responsible.

[GPT AddIns]

I get where you’re coming from, and in workflows that are strictly single-owner, this approach isn’t necessary.
But in many cross-functional scenarios — where a task legitimately requires input from multiple disciplines — relying on one assignee can create unnecessary bottlenecks or force teams into awkward workarounds like duplicate issues or extra subtasks.
This app simply streamlines collaboration in those contexts, while still allowing teams to maintain clear ownership structures where that’s important.

[Bill Sheboy]

Hi @GPT AddIns 

Whenever I see a question / post requesting a feature for multiple assignees for a single Jira work item, I wonder: what problem is one trying to solve?  For example...

• Perhaps the "team" is actually composed of sub-teams, and there is a desire to assign work items to the members of a sub-team so they get "credit" and / or so their capacity is tracked as a sub-team
• Perhaps the organization optimizes individual contributions rather than teams delivering value.  And, they want to see those individual contributions.  If so, why not use work items by person for the specific contribution they perform, and use links to coordinate the work relationships?
• Or, perhaps it is a non-agile practice using org, and so manages work with a precise capacity forecasting plan, by person, over a defined scope and timeframe.  If so, would not a full work breakdown structure lead to individually assignable and trackable tasks?  And when the individually assignable tasks are not considered "releasable", use Sub-task work item types to emphasize the context.
• Or, there are individual staff management challenges with "performance", and one somehow wants to use Jira assignee tracking to mitigate that.
• etc.

In my experience, when a team collaborates on work item delivery, and the team understands goals, measures, and accountability practices, it rarely matters who on the team is assigned to the work item.  Capacity is managed by people's collaborative discussion of availability, skills, experience, progress, and the work items when planned / accepted for delivery implementation.  And any individual contributor challenges requiring "performance" tracking, are instead managed by team leaders being present, and interacting with their teams, and individuals, to deliver timely feedback to collaborate on goals and adjustments.

Kind regards,
Bill

[GPT AddIns]

Hi Bill,

I appreciate your thoughtful breakdown — you’ve raised several valid points about how teams and organizations typically approach work assignment in Jira.

Our use case is focused specifically on cross-functional or collaborative work items, where multiple people (often from different specialties) are actively accountable for delivery. In such cases, breaking down into sub-tasks or assigning only one individual can sometimes create unnecessary administrative work, duplicate tickets, or fragment the visibility of the true collaborative effort.

It’s worth noting that this capability has been highly requested by a large number of Jira users, many of whom have shared similar challenges around accurately representing shared ownership in their workflows. While traditional agile practices work well in many scenarios, there is a significant portion of the user base whose real-world processes involve parallel accountability and overlapping roles.

The goal isn’t to replace established agile principles but to offer flexibility — enabling better transparency for work that genuinely requires shared ownership while still supporting existing capacity planning and accountability practices. It’s about giving teams the tools to reflect their actual delivery model in Jira, without forcing unnecessary workarounds.

Kind regards