3 ms·

All three of these "rebuttals" can be countered by one simple fact: Jira does not allow multiple owners on a story. That misguided restriction creates much admi

All three of these "rebuttals" can be countered by one simple fact: Jira does not allow multiple owners on a story. That misguided restriction creates much administrative headache, and is not shared by most other agile boards, such as Trello and Pivotal. We have this truism/platitude in software that you should never blame your tools, so if a tool isn't serving you then you just aren't using it in the proper place, but there are times when a tool really just isn't built on a solid foundation for the general problem space it's designed for, and Jira is one of those.

solatic 8y ago
But there's a very good reason for that, and it's because single ownership provides clear accountability for progress. When multiple people "own" something then everything thinks that someone else is in charge of moving things forward, and orgs with multiple responsibility are generally dysfunctional as a result. If responsibility for action has moved to another stakeholder, then the Assignee should be changed to reflect that. Of course, Jira allows multiple stakeholders to be kept in the loop by adding them as watchers. The UX could be better by making it easier to add user groups to the watch list of a batch of issues, but that's beside the point that single-responsibility is strictly better.
- tboyd47 8y ago
  Jira is a bit of a kitchen sink, so it's strange for them to be doubling down like this. Lots of customers have complained about the restriction and the other trackers don't have it. It would be great to see some research supporting their opinion or if they could just accept that it is a legitimate need for some customers. One negative result I've seen in Jira (that I haven't seen using other trackers) is that management is very careful to split up stories individually and assign each person tasks. As a result, team members are only concerned with their own tasks and don't want to help each other, which is disastrous on an "agile" team.
  - solatic 8y ago
    > team members are only concerned with their own tasks and don't want to help each other, which is disastrous on an "agile" team I think there's a delicate and nuanced balance here. On one side of the spectrum, there's dysfunctional teams where team members constantly interrupt each other and make it impossible for other team members to get anything done, because nobody can reach any level of focus. Team velocity stays a constant low, and incompetent management accepts low velocity because it's perceived as the stable and predictable output of the team in question. But on the other end, you have teams which don't communicate at all, and that's a different kind of dysfunction. I guess the question is, how much does any tool shape team culture, and how does that compare to management's influence and responsibility in shaping culture. Ultimately it's management's responsibility, but management also chooses the tools which a given team will use. I think that management has much more influence over team culture than any tool.

solatic 8y ago

But there's a very good reason for that, and it's because single ownership provides clear accountability for progress. When multiple people "own" something then everything thinks that someone else is in charge of moving things forward, and orgs with multiple responsibility are generally dysfunctional as a result. If responsibility for action has moved to another stakeholder, then the Assignee should be changed to reflect that. Of course, Jira allows multiple stakeholders to be kept in the loop by adding them as watchers. The UX could be better by making it easier to add user groups to the watch list of a batch of issues, but that's beside the point that single-responsibility is strictly better.

tboyd47 8y ago
Jira is a bit of a kitchen sink, so it's strange for them to be doubling down like this. Lots of customers have complained about the restriction and the other trackers don't have it. It would be great to see some research supporting their opinion or if they could just accept that it is a legitimate need for some customers. One negative result I've seen in Jira (that I haven't seen using other trackers) is that management is very careful to split up stories individually and assign each person tasks. As a result, team members are only concerned with their own tasks and don't want to help each other, which is disastrous on an "agile" team.
- solatic 8y ago
  > team members are only concerned with their own tasks and don't want to help each other, which is disastrous on an "agile" team I think there's a delicate and nuanced balance here. On one side of the spectrum, there's dysfunctional teams where team members constantly interrupt each other and make it impossible for other team members to get anything done, because nobody can reach any level of focus. Team velocity stays a constant low, and incompetent management accepts low velocity because it's perceived as the stable and predictable output of the team in question. But on the other end, you have teams which don't communicate at all, and that's a different kind of dysfunction. I guess the question is, how much does any tool shape team culture, and how does that compare to management's influence and responsibility in shaping culture. Ultimately it's management's responsibility, but management also chooses the tools which a given team will use. I think that management has much more influence over team culture than any tool.