Reimagining ‘work’ in Jira to better represent all teams

[Shane Kelly]

I am infuriated. I keep looking for something and can't find it until I realize, it has been renamed to "work ..." or "... work".

What the heck?! Why?!?

Just like Microsoft now. Renaming things. Next you will be removing awesome features like Google does, because "not many people use it ...".

Atlassian is a company as any other. Bait and switch is what this is called.

[Kelly Arrey]

@Shane Kelly Yup. Also, optimizing for people who haven't even bought the product in an effort to remove perceived barriers to entry, at the expense of incurring needless frustration and wasted time for literally millions of users who already pay for the product.

[__ Jimi Wikman]

@Shane Kelly @Kelly Arrey  Words matter and this change is just a small part of the rework of the Atlassian products towards a new Atlassian product line and a new focus.

Considering that pretty much all navigation is changing in the Atlassian platforms, the change of the word issue to work will not be the biggest issue, even if it does not help. This is a change and as with all changes it takes time to transition from the old to the new.

Atlassian is already removing unused features, and they have always done that. It sucks when you are one of those that actually use it, but that is part of being responsible with your resources to focus on what most people need and not what a few needs. If there is a hard core need for a small group, then there will be an app for it eventually and those that need it can choose to pay for it.

This is how businesses work.

@Kelly ArreyIt is not about removing perceived barriers, it is about using the wrong word for what we do in the product. It has always been an issue (see what I did there) and it has caused tons of discussions and confusions for no reason other than that Atlassian have chosen not to change the wording before now.

There is zero value in leaving Issue as the term for the work people do, but there is a value in naming it correctly as words matter.

Being frustrated over change in a SaaS platform that literally push out a dozen changes, or more, every week is pointless. As much as I get lost in the new navigation and the new wording, I know that this change is good in the long run.

Change is hard, but it is necessary.

Especially so we can get rid of words like Epic, Issues and Projects that confuse the crap out of people and cause problems in every organization I have seen.

So let's hope that we'll see Jira Projects be changed to Jira Workspaces next.

[Stephen_Lugton]

@__ Jimi Wikman with Epics, Issues etc. we already use custom issue types for some of our teams:

• One team is full of gamers, so for them we use Quests (for epics), Challenges (for stories) and Encounters (for bugs)
• With another team that has uses Deliverables instead of Epics

In general I create issue types depending on what we're doing so we also have things like Ad-Hoc Requests, Workshop (instead of Spike), Knowledge Transfer (also used for documentation).  Instead of asking someone to add a ticket / issue we ask them to raise an Ad-Hoc Request, put in a workshop, etc.

[__ Jimi Wikman]

@Stephen_LugtonThat is how most people do it, but you would still have the language of the Epics in all aspects of the platform, like the Epic panel for example and the level where the Quests, Challenges and Encounters exists in the hierarchy is still named Epic.

This is where the confusion comes in as a development team will have their Epics defined as features, a management or product team will use the Epic as more of a focus area and a strategic team will see them as initiatives, projects or even themes.

All are Epics, which is causing problems down the chain...

[Ronda]

My position is the same regarding the word (language) changes forth coming. It seems most software developers/engineers create things with other technical people in mind who this may make sense to versus considering those who need to communicate in daily operations with a non technical audience.

We in Service Management will still say to the customers - create a ticket for issues.  Create a "work" sounds ridiculous not to mention it is not proper use of the English language.

[__ Jimi Wikman]

@RondaI hear you, but I find "create a ticket" is equally silly because you will get the follow-up question "what kind of ticket" if you have more than one request type.

I always tell people to use the request type name instead when you tell people to create things, so it would be "create an incident", "create an access request" or "create a story" depending on what work item you want them to create.

Correct me if I am wrong, but besides a few standard Queues, is the word Ticket even in the Atlassian products?

[Ronda]

If I tell a customer to create a ticket, it makes perfect sense to the customer. When they enter the user portal they are presented the options for the "type" of issue or request they are seeking assistance with. The fact that you negate this shows me that you do not deal with users in ITSM. This is a very basic in standard for a Service Desk.

[__ Jimi Wikman]

@RondaDon't get me wrong, there is a whole discipline called ticket management, so I am well aware that that is what people refer to in ITSM and other support contexts. That does not mean it makes sense when you ask people to create a generic object instead of a specific one.

Just because everyone is doing it, does not make it right and generic answers tend to come with follow-up questions to get specifics.

Once you teach your users to refer to the request types instead, they will not revert.  At least not in my experience.

[Ronda]

Thank you for your input, but it's the end user I have in mind. They mostly don't understand our technical terms which make sense to you and I, however I know after 20 years in IT Operations dealing with customer facing issues, they will always use the common term "Ticket". We can agree, to disagree. 

Back to Creating a "work" to do my "work".. yeah. Done with this conversation as it will not change a thing.

[Shane Kelly]

Jira allows me to name Issues what I want. That is what makes it flexible. I can have "Documents" or "Employee" or "Bug" or, or, or ....

So in the end, it doesn't really matter what Jira calls Issues. What matters is that people working together have the same understanding of what is called what.

Therefore, having the menu named "your work" does kinda make sense, since this page show me what Documents to work on or what Employee needs onboarding etc.

Is this the essence of what Atlassian is trying to achieve?

It was never about "creating a work item" just as it was (maybe?) never about "create an issue".

you guys get my point?