What is more important - the simplicity of the tool or the unlimited possibilities of setting it up?
The specifics of the work have to communicate with a sufficiently large number of companies and teams developing software.
Many of them use jira as a bugtracker, and moreover, as a project management tool, trying to even work with requirements to build attachments of files to tasks.
This can be said, statistics, and I want to show one remarkable thing with her example - the vast majority of such teams are dissatisfied with the jira settings that they have - you always want to tweak something (for example, add a new field to the form), and often this turns out to be a burden for further work on the project.
')
What is the essence of the problem: the most important advantage of jira is the ability to configure it: forms, states, workflow, filters.
This, oddly enough, is at the same time its biggest drawback - psychologically, if there are settings in the instrument, they must be tuned. Hence the following problems:
But if you look closely at the really necessary needs of the majority (with rare exceptions) of projects in terms of task and bug tracking, everything turns out to be extremely simple - the simplest settings are enough.
When developing the project management system DEVPROM , we were guided by the principle “the simpler, the clearer, better and more convenient”:
And most importantly - when using a simple tool, you have more time to concentrate on the main thing - on developing your project.
Tool as an assistant, and not as an additional obstacle to success.
Many of them use jira as a bugtracker, and moreover, as a project management tool, trying to even work with requirements to build attachments of files to tasks.
This can be said, statistics, and I want to show one remarkable thing with her example - the vast majority of such teams are dissatisfied with the jira settings that they have - you always want to tweak something (for example, add a new field to the form), and often this turns out to be a burden for further work on the project.
')
What is the essence of the problem: the most important advantage of jira is the ability to configure it: forms, states, workflow, filters.
This, oddly enough, is at the same time its biggest drawback - psychologically, if there are settings in the instrument, they must be tuned. Hence the following problems:
- Complicated forms and workflow tasks, respectively, and complicated work with the system itself
- New settings, such as form fields, soon after being created are unused, turn into garbage, cluttering up an already overloaded interface.
- Since the jira setup process is very non-trivial, it requires a specially trained person — usually it is not bought on the market, but grown from its own — after years and broken tune of neighboring projects
But if you look closely at the really necessary needs of the majority (with rare exceptions) of projects in terms of task and bug tracking, everything turns out to be extremely simple - the simplest settings are enough.
When developing the project management system DEVPROM , we were guided by the principle “the simpler, the clearer, better and more convenient”:
- We did not invent a complex security model - it is enough to split the access rights according to strictly defined user roles (Customer, Developer, Analyst, PM, etc.)
- Task and Error we have the same workflow, because in fact they do not differ
- Task states are only really necessary: ​​Added, Approved, Scheduled, In Work, Completed, Closed and Delayed
And most importantly - when using a simple tool, you have more time to concentrate on the main thing - on developing your project.
Tool as an assistant, and not as an additional obstacle to success.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/54296/
All Articles