Jira Reviews

We are using the recent version.

We use it for story and sprint planning, as well as for reporting. 

The solution benefits our organization with its agility, planning and visibility in respect of large teams spanning different geo locations.

The tool is well known and popular to use. 

The sprint planning is pretty good, as are the reporting piece, retrospective reporting and the planning board. 

It is a great tool from the planning perspective, such as that of capacity and sprint planning. 

As the solution is highly configurable, it has very poor governance. There is nothing which comes out of Jira to go into the product. It is free for all and anyone can create with it. This means that the responsibility lies with the user community to create some form of governance. 

Moreover, the solution is geared to small teams. It lacks scalability. 

The tool is not good at the enterprise level. This means that, depending on how the person installed the software, the issue of performance may increase commensurate with the number of projects. While plugin for x-ray exists, it is not that mature in test management. Although it's a good tool for many of the smaller clients, once a person goes deeper into it, it's not there, even though it will get the work done. 

It is a less desirable solution in controlled environments, such as science, banking and finance, in which there is a need for certain compliance supports.

The solution is not that great for audit histories. It's a great tool when much integration is involved. With cold products, things can always be achieved through other means. 

When the teams collaborate, they need multiple metrics to be tracked. With this comes the issue of direct impacts, such as the appearance of one's UI and its usability aspects. The screens have changed greatly in appearance over the last ten years. This is an issue which every software dealt with in line with the growth of usage and complexity. 

I have been using Jira for nearly ten years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is good for small teams. It lacks scalability. It does not work well when it must be used across multiple domains and multiple teams which need to collaborate. 

The Atlassian strategy is that the solution be open to all to encourage collaboration. But, this raises the issue of how to control the data input and the tool and all that it comprises in respect of the reporting that is generated. This means that poor data quality in the geo projects will equate with poor reporting on it. 

As such, supplementation by the teams or organizations using it is required. They must come up with their own rules of governance about who can do what. 

The product is not being extensively used at the moment. It is a niche product. I have not seen usage behind it. It involves ID users for certain teams. 

We do not have plans to increase usage. This will depend on the feedback we receive. 

I have not made use of technical support. 

We did not switch to Jira. It is simply one of the products that we also use in addition to an in-house micro focus ALM. 

While I was not involved in the initial setup, my understanding is that it is simple. Atlassian puts out many different products and I cannot say for certain how I would have handled ones which are on-premises, compared to those which are cloud-based or server products. 

I am not in a position to comment on the licensing. 

We make use of the solution on Jira Cloud. 

While I cannot say with certainty, I would estimate the number of users in our organization at a thousand-plus. 

This figure contemplates different departments, such as that involving support. 

My advice is that someone in a large enterprise first give consideration to the issue of governance before implementing the solution. For a small team it is ready to use straight out of the box. One need just try and stay with the default workflows. There is no need to overengineer the product. 

The product is good, stable and very cost-effective for small teams. These are some of its advantages. 

I rate Jira as a seven out of ten. 

I believe we are using the latest on-premises version. 

Confluence, not Jira, is the most convenient feature with Atlassian. We use the product for knowledge management, the use of creating or documenting knowledge into a knowledge base.

I would like to have a future-proof idea of the cost and the roadmap for my class. This is in light of the fact that they are switching things up, promoting the cloud service and mixing different support levels.

The CMDB and knowledge platforms that are in the background of the ticketing tool should also be addressed. 

I have been using Jira for five years. 

When it comes to the question of stability, this depends wholly on the amount of resources provided to the virtual servers, since we make on-premises use. 

We have internal Atlassian experts, so it is tough for me to comment on the technical support.

The price of the solution could be lower.

We are currently in the initial stages of contemplating a switch from Jira. 

My advice is to work closely with Atlassian to make sure that all the designs are future-proof.

It is tough for me to Rate the solution. There are features needing improvement, but also many good things about Atlassian. As such, I rate Jira as a seven out of ten.

We use Jira for task tracking, sprint planning, and backlog.

The dashboards are useful. You have visibility across projects and various dashboards.

The status of the different activities is also helpful 

In general, it is not user-friendly. 

For a non-technical person to use, Jira is not intuitive. If you are a developer it's fine, but we are trying to get other technical people in to look at tasks or to update a task, move it from one sprint to another sprint and it takes more effort than I would like.

I would just like to see it easier to use, and I would like the workflows to be less complex to do what we need them to do.

My experience with Jira is limited, but the organization has been using Jira for three years.

We are using the latest version.

Jira is stable. to my knowledge, we have not had any issues with bugs or glitches.

The scalability can be complex if you are using workflows.

We have approximately 20 developers and some managers in our organization who use Jira. 

I have not yet used Jira technical support.

Previously, we did not use another solution. We started with Jira.

Along with Jira, we use Microsoft Azure DevOps.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward. 

It was fairly simple for us.

I would recommend getting sound knowledge first. It is difficult to go back later to fix things, so try to build it right the first time.

For the functionality that exists, I think that it's good.

I would rate Jira an eight out of ten.

We are using it for service management, change management, project management, and tracking the changes.

It is user-friendly, and you can manage your project according to the methodology you want. It is also easy to configure.

The dashboard reports can be improved. Its dashboard reports are good, but you cannot have complex reports. They are currently very basic. For instance, we can only choose two columns for a dashboard, so it is not friendly enough.

So far, I've only used the project management parts. We are examining resource planning and sample plugins for the product. From my point of view, resource planning is a little bit hard to link with project management. Sample plugins are another part of the system, and we need to link it with project management in the BigPicture screen, which is a little bit hard. It would be valuable for us if we can do resource planning in BigPicture as well. Currently, it is another plugin, and you can only plan based on the people and not projects, and you cannot link it, as far as I know.

My company has been using it since the beginning of this year. It has been around six months. I have been using it for three weeks.

It is stable, and everyone generally looks satisfied.

We are trying to settle the project management part and widen it to all countries in our company. There will be many users.

We are working with a consulting company. Technically, we are okay because all of us are using it now, and there is no problem. We just need to see more details of some of the modules of Jira.

For its implementation and deployment, they have been working for one year.

Jira is a big platform, and you can use staff management, project management, and other fields that all companies want to use. If you use Jira, you will see the whole IT governance in one system.

With this solution, we can see the full picture in detail, but it can be improved. Resource planning is not easy for our project base.

I would rate Jira a seven out of 10. It will be an eight in the future. I need more time to work on Jira.

We are basically using it to support the UAT tasks. We are also using it for IT support task handling and working together as a team in our company. 

At my workplace, we are using its most updated version.

I'm working in the IT department, and the ticketing system is the most important service for us. We are also using some automation add-ons. It a very good product for handling tickets and tasks and managing processes. It is also very useful and easy to use.

It would be very practical if you can more freely reach the information that is already inside the system. Currently, we have to buy add-ons for it. There is a lot of information in the Jira system that you can handle only through add-ons. You cannot reach such information on your own. If you want to use this information, which is already in the system, you have to buy some add-on to use. For example, information about how much time an assignee is spending on a ticket is there in the system, but you cannot access it without an add-on. JQL is a very good way to reach the data inside Jira. If we can reach more objects, even through JQL, it would be great.

There are a few small functions that we are missing in it. For example, you cannot rate a ticket. If you would like to use a rating for a ticket, you cannot give stars or something like that.

I have been using this solution for more than five years.

We rarely come across any issues. Sometimes, it slows down a little bit, and then usually, we just have to rebuild the index. That's all. It needs lots of resources and CPU memory. If the resources are okay, we don't feel any problem with it.

It is probably easier to scale on the cloud. The on-premise is not so scalable, but if you can define the resources, it works well.

In terms of the number of users, we have around 750 users.

We do not directly contact Atlassian. We have a support company that helps us with any situation.

It is simple to initiate or install the product. It is easy and simple, but if you make some designs inside and build some projects with some automatization, it can be more complex.

We first tried to build the system inside the Docker environment, but it was not a success. So, we switched to the normal installation mode. Installing the product and making it work took just a few days. It included building servers and a database.

We do it on our own, but we have some strong support. We have outside support in case of any problem with it.

In terms of maintenance, you have to do the updates. You have to upgrade the system and handle the add-ons versions. If you build the inside environment in the Jira, you always have to fast forward to the project.

We have two teams to handle the maintenance. For standard maintenance, where you are upgrading the versions, we have an IT professional team for it. For the inside environment of the Jira projects and automation functions, we have a service management team.

If you are using just Jira, it is cheap, but if you start to use it and you feel you need some more services or more functions, then you have to buy add-ons, which can make it expensive.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Jira an eight out of 10. It is definitely not perfect, but it is almost perfect.

We have been using Jira for schedule management as well as for making updates to our projects. I mention this in my capacity as a project manager. I most recently used the solution this year and did so for scheduled management of our varied tasks and projects. JIRA is actually used to put together an entire portfolio for each one of the teams, meaning for everybody. The solution listed each of our projects individually, with us needing to provide daily and regular updates. 

A most valuable feature involves the ability to customize the entries and to update them quickly. Unlike what was previously available, the solution allows us to create specific codes and symbols for the individual teams. The new version allows one to customize and to use demarcators. There is a code that can be entered in Align upon completion of a project or task and this apprises the project manager that it is time for its removal. 

Something I do not like about the new version is that there is a need to browse all the way back to the beginning, should a person click on a task that is specifically for his group and wish to go back and look at the other portfolios or people. However, I cannot state definitively if this situation owes itself to the way our team put the site together or to something administrative. When clicking the back button it would take the person to the wrong page, not to the one he desires. One would actually have no choice but to browse back to the portfolio and to find his group again and open it. Again, it is not clear to me if this problem lies with Jira or with the way our team laid out the site. 

I feel Jira is stable. The only hiccup which comes to mind is the one I mentioned, although it is not clear to me if this owed itself to the network we were using or to limitations of the application. Except for this, everything about the solution is stable. The only time a person can not look at the information is when the administrator announces his intention to remove it. 

The scalability is pretty good and we started on this process from the moment we started utilizing the solution. While we had only three teams and three sections, between December and January 15th the developers came together and expanded from three to 76 different tasks across the different teams. By February there were over 300 teams. Expansion is easy and did not just encompass our teams but also provided links to others that were outside of our main team set so that there were reference points available.

I would say the tech support is pretty good. I got back a couple of answers in response to an email I sent out. 

It was quite easy for me to set up my own pages. I had a field day with creating my own test pages and was able to play around with them and simply test out the different settings. Pulling in new documentation was very easy. The same holds true with pulling in attachments and it was, consequently, easy to set up. As well, I was able to set up certain sub-pages for our team for going in and checking JIRA.

There were initially eight people involved in the maintenance of the solution and deployment of updates. They had the people to whom they answered. We are talking about a large-scale effort. Without taking into account the Jira support line, I would say there were around 12 people managing and administering this version. For our specific team, there were around three. They were the actual decision makers. 

I am not in a position to comment on licensing costs. 

Our team does not use the solution exclusively. There are multiple ones which do, although I cannot state how many teams are doing so. I do know that the entire section of our agency is doing so and this accounts for a lot of people, well over a hundred. 

The solution is pretty good and is geared towards those with multiple teams who are using it for the same purposes as us. We use it for providing daily and scrub updates, for which it is really good, as it allows one to track every entry and see when it's entered, timestamp and all. So, if a person has a lot of mission-critical or time-sensitive activities, JIRA is pretty good for tracking and helping to keep everything organized.

While I am still biased towards services at the moment, I rate Jira as an eight out of ten, at it is really good and very functional. 

We use Jira to manage all our software development projects and our engineering projects. Our main use of the solution is for the workflows on our different types of projects. It's mainly used by our engineering groups, they have the proper workflows and all of the stats. As a director, I work more at the business level, tracking tasks similar to the new planner that's in Microsoft which some people are switching to. We also use it in the backend of the projects. For project managers and directors, it's more about a to-do list thing that's shared. I'm a company director and we are customers of Jira. 

The online collaborative nature of the solution has been helpful. Previously, coordination was done in Microsoft Project and Excel spreadsheets. The level of collaboration and the accessibility of the information which Jira offers has greatly improved things and we've also been able to build out and fine tune the workflows and the integration into the different tool sets. We're definitely going to keep using Jira.

I think the customization and tailoring of the workflows have proven to be very useful. And then there's the collaboration of the tool itself which has a lot of nice features. 

One of the issues is tracking the hours that people spend on each task. I know the solution has some built-in features but it doesn't quite meet our needs. We tried a couple of expansions unsuccessfully. Being able to track the effort on each of the tasks is important for us and we'd also like to be able to compare that with what's been budgeted. It would be useful. We've recently moved to Teams and some of the integration with Teams doesn't seem to work, whether it's not supported or not there, the ability to integrate that would be something we'd like to see. 

We've been using this solution for over five years. 

We haven't had any issues with stability. 

We're a fairly small organization. We've scaled up to around 500 users and we haven't had any issues with that. It's mainly used by our engineering group, and our active users use it all the time, on a daily basis. We'll increase as we organically grow. 

I can't recall the initial setup but it took us a while to figure out exactly how to use it. We deployed using our own staff. 

I don't know what the licensing costs are but we find them affordable. It's never been a major issue.

This is a powerful tool and allows a lot of collaboration, it's worth spending some time figuring out how your workflows will be, that's where the real value is.

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

I'm overseeing the developments done in Jira. 

The thing that I do like about Jira is that it is relatively easy to understand. In some respects, you don't have to read a lot of ticket information, and you can start pulling down. Everybody is using it, and it works for a lot of people who are just doing enterprise development, cloud-based development, and things like that. It is built for the general audience. 

It is a good defect tracking tool. It has a lot of capabilities and functionalities. There are a lot of graphs and a lot of tracking. It can be sprint-driven if you want. There is a lot of data that you can pull out for estimations. It has got a lot of out-of-the-box functionalities that are kind of like the Jazz platform for out-of-the-box scrum and other such things. 

It also works well with all the integrated tools that you buy.

One thing that I don't like about Jira is that when you do an export, it only allows a thousand issues. So the export feature needs to be better. 

Another thing that I don't like about it is related to epics. There are times when you simultaneously want to have a story tied to two epics, one driving the content change and one driving the format of that evolution. It is not truly a parent-child relationship. It is a single-parent relationship to the stories. It would be nice if you had the capability to tie in multiple epics to a particular story. It is a rare case, but we have that. 

Setting up and executing a triage board should be simpler in the sense of how you do the admin. I come from a regulated space, and there should be easier control of who approves and reviews a system board to oversee all the defects. It should have easier out-of-the-box solutions to allow us to set up a triage board at the system level, the software board level that reports to the system board, or the test level that reports to the software board at the system level. There should be out-of-the-box solutions to migrate that and say that who are the three people on the triage board and if they have these admin privileges. Software review board and test review board would be another thing.

We have also had a problem with the integration with Bitbucket Pull Request data. It is an add-on to the tool, but it is not fully integrated. It is not easy from my perspective. Jira, Bitbucket, and Xray should be smoothly integrated. Xray is pretty good, but Bitbucket is standalone. So, when you pull out the data from a comma-separated value and want to move it into a new database, you have to reenter the data. You somehow lose that Pull Request capability. Pull Request through Bitbucket and the review of the code should be easier to manage. You could use a software package called Crucible to go ahead and mark how you did the review, who reviewed it, and who is the independent reviewer or subject matter expert, but that also should be easier to set up. If they want Jira to be the one-stop shop of the view of all of your deliverables, not just from a defect tracking perspective, but also from a requirement perspective, a code perspective, and a testing perspective, it needs to pull out more data and work better as an integration tool. 

I'm using Jira for the requirement repository. When I do requirements, it would be nice if I had the capability to say that for your requirement, I'm going to give you traceability to support a traceability report from Xray. I'm also going to give a requirement ID number in the ticket. You could use Jama and things like that, but it would be nice if Jira supported that.

We had on-prem and cloud deployments. We had to go to on-prem because of the security measures that were deployed. On-cloud didn't have the same capability. If you have one database on the cloud and the other one is on-prem, they don't talk to each other. It would be nice if you pulled it in and you could switch and say that I want to go on-prem because I got greater security risk.

When we go into the regulated space, I require a lot more integration and capability for tools. It is very hard to get tools to perform at that level because they're built for the general audience. In the regulated space, whether you're in medical devices, avionics, or any other regulated environment, tools have to be validated. I've worked with some companies in the past that had the capability to facilitate that validation. With one of the solutions, you could go ahead and buy a validated suite or a requirement package that will validate the tool for your use, but it is such a small market for Jira around the world that nobody really cares about that.

On their website, they show a bunch of tools that work with Jira, but it would be nice if they gave you examples and said that if you're a regulated medical device or regulated, here's a solution that could work for you. Here is Jira. Here is Crucible, and here is Xray, and here is what it'll do for you. They could also ask how do you do the requirement management? Do you use Jama that ties to Jira? It would be awesome if they had some use cases that showed people how to use Jira as the building block and how to add something on the front end for requirement management, and something on the backend for testing, such as Crucible for the peer reviews and Xray for the test management. People would see it and say that I want to do that.

It would also be nice if it could provide some lock-out capabilities based on your development and environment preferences. For example, you can specify that no one can close a defect until it has been tested, or until a particular task is complete, you can't go to the next phase. It would be cool if you could have something like this set up versus someone configuring it in the background.

They have got 10,000 licenses of Jira, and they have teams around the world deploying it across multiple geographies. All of that works fine.

I haven't used them because this company has its own tech support. So, I've been reaching out to them.

Most people who turn to Jira say that the return on investment is much better. 

Jira and its solution off the shelf are cheap. It is cheap for startups.

It depends on what you want to use Jira for, and what's the problem you're trying to solve. If you're going to do defect tracking and management of an artifact and you have got requirements, code, and tests, and they all got to summarize, you have to then go ahead and take Jira. You can then buy Crucible for the peer reviews and Xray for the test management and get them to work seamlessly with each other. 

I would rate Jira an eight out of ten. It is fairly cheap. For a nine or ten, it would be like DOORS and Jazz platform, but the problem with that is that it would become really expensive.