📣 Feature update: Hierarchies in Jira Product Discovery

[Audrey Sebbane]

hello there ! Just activated the feature to start testing it ! :)

Although, I am not 100% sure, the tree view is not yet released right?

thanks in advance !

[Tanguy Crusson]

@Audrey Sebbane correct: not released yet

[dtidmas]

Thank you for shipping this feature, didn't realise how sorely we were missing it until we started organising our ideas into hierarchy (Goal > Opportunity > Idea). 

Thanks!

[Lisa McCann]

@Tanguy Crusson Hello! 

QQs: 

• Does this hierarchy approach solve the validation and feasibility work tracking? 
• Is Goals a paid for feature/app? :(

[Tanguy Crusson]

@Lisa McCann You could use this feature for things like this (e.g. a "discovery work" type)

Goals is part of the Atlassian platform (home.atlassian.com/goals), it's free

[Kevin Hoffman]

Hi @Tanguy Crusson, when the tree view lands, will it have support for multiple levels of opportunities and solutions for teams who work with Opportunity Solution Trees? The connection fields work well today but we are struggling to show multi-level relationships.

For example, if a parent opportunity has a child opportunity and solution is connected to the child opportunity, then the solution should also be visible in the Connections tab of the parent opportunity without having to explicitly connect everything.

[Antal Vig Communardo]

Thank you JPD Team and @Tanguy Crusson 
This is really big and it opens up so many opportunities and new ways to use JPD. 

I'm just working with a client that evaluates moving from Product Board to JPD. One of the biggest things that we need to think there is how we deal with insights. In (their) Product Board they have one central place for all their insights that they can link to multiple ideas. In JPD its the other way round and you need to copy them if you want to use that Multiple times. 

But with this new Feature you could just make insights a new Work type and then Link these together. Sure impact isn't trackable then, but did you have used that somewhere?

Also we're thinking to use that to link to customers, and with that split that into customer segments. 
Are you guys planing to use Mirror fields, as in to Show the customer Segment from the customer WT in the linked Idea?

But this is very promissing, and I'm excited how this develops further.

[Tanguy Crusson]

@Kevin Hoffman that's a limitation/challenge with the model we went with and we're discussing options to best address it 👍

@Antal Vig Communardo We're keen to hear back what you find out if you try that out - I've tried myself and am not sold that it will quite cut it for an insights solution, but it was only a very quick exploration. For Mirror fields: not sure how we'll handle that part. I think that's related to Kevin's question too actually.

[Antal Vig Communardo]

Thanks @Tanguy Crusson 
I'll let you know, But so far it works alright. 

With the Mirror fields I'm unsure myself, maybe I'm thinking too much like I did in monday.co. I will let that thought ripe a bit. 

Btw next week I drop a video about this new feature on Linkedin. ;) 

[Mirko Grahnert]

@Tanguy Crusson Maybe a quick follow-up question about the point Kevin raised regarding multi-level support.

While I'm (so far) not too worried about multiple layers of sub-items showing up in the Connection tab, I'd be curious to know if the plan for the tree-view is to visualize more than the 3 levels of hierarchy that are currently available? For example, would the tree view be able to show the breakdown of (Goal) > Opportunity > Sub-Opportunity > Solution > Experiment?

[Mirko Grahnert]

@Tanguy Crusson Maybe a quick follow-up question about the point Kevin raised regarding multi-level support.

While I'm (so far) not too worried about multiple layers of sub-items showing up in the Connection tab, I'd be curious to know if the plan for the tree-view is to visualize more than the 3 levels of hierarchy that are currently available? For example, would the tree view be able to show the breakdown of (Goal) > Opportunity > Sub-Opportunity > Solution > Experiment?

Totally get that you might not be able to commit to anything on this just yet.

[Tanguy Crusson]

@Mirko Grahnert long story short: we don't know yet. what's your hierarchy?

[Mirko Grahnert]

Fair enough, thanks @Tanguy Crusson. The specific hierarchy varies slightly from team to team, but in most cases it will look something like this:

1. (Atlas Goal)
2. Opportunity
3. Sub-Opportunity
4. Solution
5. Experiment

[Sébastien RATEL]

Hi @Tanguy Crusson ,

The feature looks great but can not be deployed on client site because of security issues. Security refuses to deploy any "beta" feature.

When can we expect the feature to be released in the Premium plan and not as beta ?

Regards

[Tim Sanford]

@Tanguy Crusson  Are there any plans to offer the ability to have input forms custom to the the type...so a different form input for Ideas, as opposed to Solutions or Opps?  Thanks!

[Brandon Moberg]

@Tanguy Crusson Just enabled our Premium trial and am really excited about its potential thus far. I wanted to flag 1 potential bug in case it's not on your radar. Workaround seems to be to just keep trying again and it eventually works.

There seems to be an intermittent bug when trying to create more than 1 global connection field for the same Jira PD project

• Yesterday, I enabled beta hierarchies
• I created 2 global connection fields and added them to our Jira PD project
  • Opportunity
  • Solution
• Today, I created a 3rd global connection field (e.g., Company OKR), it lets me add it to the same Jira PD project, and is added to the Global fields table
  • But once I refresh the Global fields, the Jira PD project is automatically removed from the 3rd global connection field.
  • If I try to add it back, it lets me, then auto-removes it again.
  • When I deleted my Solution global connection field and tried adding the OKR global connection field again, it worked fine (as the 2nd field).
  • Then I added back my Solution global connection field and it worked fine, so now I have 3 Connections fields available.
  • But then I tried to add a fourth global connection field (e.g., Focus) and it didn't work again, automatically removing the project after the field was added.
• Workaround seems to be to just keep trying but flagging in case it's not on your radar.
  
  

I can share a video if helpful. Thanks!

[Chris Wing]

@Tanguy Crusson We are currently building out a prototype and using our single discovery project to create a couple different roadmaps. We will eventually break out the single project into each team. 

Currently when I am creating multiple connections, it seems there is possibly a syncing error where it won't save the "discovery project" that was originally selected. I've already created the new issuetype to associate with the connection.

This happened on Friday as well but eventually resolved itself. We currently have three connections and we are trying to create a fourth. Based off the video, it doesn't seem like there would be a limit but is there any reason why this is happening and not correctly syncing?

**update 3:42 PM CST - this is happening with any global field that I'm creating, regardless of the type selected. I tried to create a number type for a stack ranking field and it creates it but doesn't keep the "discovery project" that I initially select.