Is there any way to link more Epics to the new Projects?

[Torben]

First of all I like the whole renaming of projects to spaces and having now the possibility to actually report on projects. 

The main issue I have for now is, that using the "Where is the work tracked?" I can only link one EPIC to it. Usually we have projects that take longer than one iteration and might also span across teams and services. So having the possibility to link multiple Epics is essential.

Any idea on either a better way or when this will be possible? I am open for suggestions ;-)

[Ali Umut Terzi · Accepted solution]

Hi @Torben ! 👋

That’s a great question — and you’re not alone on this one 🙂

This is by design — Jira currently treats “Project” as a container level entity above a single Epic, not a grouping of multiple Epics.

If your real-world projects span across several Epics (which is quite common), there are a few ways to handle this effectively:

1. 🧩 Use an Initiative or higher-level issue type
   If you have Advanced Roadmaps (Plans) enabled (Jira Premium Plan), you can create an Initiative issue type and link multiple Epics under it using the hierarchy configuration.
   → That way, your “Project” view can roll up several Epics naturally.
2. 🔗 Use issue links instead of the Project field
   You can manually link several Epics to one “Project” issue using a custom link type, e.g. “is part of project”.
   This lets you report across all linked Epics using filters or dashboard gadgets.
   
   
   Create a filter like:

          issue in linkedIssues("ABC-123", "relates to")

          [This filter shows all issues that are linked to ABC-123 with the “relates to” link type.]

I had a similar situation — multiple Epics from different teams contributing to one shared project.

We solved it by creating a dedicated parent issue type (Initiative) in Advanced Roadmaps and connecting all related Epics under it.

That approach worked perfectly for cross-team visibility while keeping Jira’s hierarchy clean.

Hope this helps! 🙂

[Torben]

Thanks @Ali Umut Terzi 

This did clarify the situation and helped in that sense. Upgrading to Premium because of this is not yet an option for us.

I expect this design decision is down to the MVP state of this feature and not long term. I hoped I could avoid maintaining filters for each project, but if I need to make them anyway, I probably continue doing project reports in confluence.

Lets see where this goes...

[Yoann BETZI]

Hello. I have the same need and I read @Ali Umut Terzi 's answer.

I would like to know if it is possible to link an Initiative to a Project. Also, could you explain or maybe suggest documentation explaining the rational behind this limitation (1 Epic per Project)?

[Maaike van den Dries]

This will be a great possibility indeed! I would like to use that too. @Yoann BETZI you can vote for the request for the ability to sync and display all Jira issue types (not just Epics) in the Goals section of Jira projects here: [JRACLOUD-96009] Allow syncing of all Jira issue types (not just Epics) with Goals - Create and track feature requests for Atlassian products.

[Yoann BETZI]

Hello @Maaike van den Dries . My need is slightly different: I would like to be able to (at least) link or even sync one project with several Epics.

Indeed, it is common that one project features have impacts on more than one product, hence they can be split into multiple Epics, in multiple Jira spaces.

I understand and I encourage the will to follow a defined work items hierarchy, so I am not sure a Project should be linked (or synced) with Stories, Tasks or even Sub-tasks. Since Epics are containers for work items possibly part of multiple Jira spaces, it seems natural to link/sync them with a Project. But, what if the work is split into multiple Epics?

I would suggest the following options:

• Allow to link/sync one Project with multiple Epics. The name of the Project would not be synced but the dates could still be using the earlier and later dates of the Epics.
• Allow to link/sync one Project with one Initiative or another work item type which can contain multiple Epics. Syncing names and dates would not be a problem, but tracking the progress at the Project level could be more difficult.
• Keep the current restriction (1 Project : 1 Epic) and use dependencies between Projects (Project is dependent on, Project is depended on by) to define a Projects hierarchy. I wonder if the progress would be properly tracked at the higher Project hierarchy level. Also, I have the feeling it would be a lot of reporting effort (Updates, Learning, Risks, Decisions) in Projects linked/synced with small Epics.

What are your thoughts?

[Maaike van den Dries]

I share your perspective: linking an Atlassian Project to layers below Epics does not make sense for our setup. We work with Jira Plans using a structure of Initiatives (Objectives and Key Results) and Epics. Atlassian Goals fit perfectly into this model; however, I am still trying to determine how Atlassian Projects should align within this structure.
Atlassian Projects are excellent for stakeholder communication, and we want to keep them informed about the Initiatives—or at least all the Epics within an Initiative—rather than limiting visibility to a single Epic.