3 ms·

The point is that there are tools that enable and encourage bad behavior. The kinds of organizational toxicity simply aren’t possible with some tools, sure an a

The point is that there are tools that enable and encourage bad behavior. The kinds of organizational toxicity simply aren’t possible with some tools, sure an ambitious executive could try but the attempt would fail very quickly. Such attempts to do the broken overburdened nonsense that frequently comes with Jira don’t fail, they are enabled and encouraged. What is technically possible and what is likely are two very distant things.

msla 4y ago
"The tool can't do it" is an excuse. Excuses aren't tolerated. Now, make it happen. Tools can't prevent bad management because bad managers don't care about tools. They care about getting what they want, and if the tool doesn't enable it, that's their underlings' problem, not theirs. Jira doesn't stand in their way because nothing stands in their way.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  That's precisely why Jira sucks: Because it doesn't stand in their way. And why you want simpler software, which by not being able to bend to their misguided will, does stand in their way.
oneplane 4y ago
JIRA really doesn't encourage anything in any direction except writing down what you are up to in a reasonably friendly way. Anything beyond that is up to the implementors, and there is nothing in the world that can prevent bad top-down behaviour within a company.
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > JIRA really doesn't encourage anything in any direction Given the amount of effort you devoted to replying to multiple posts, it feels disingenuous when you make an obvious and inaccurate statement as fact. There is very little dependency graph organization (eg subtasks), which isn't reflected in most of the UI anyway as JIRA does push toward treating all tickets as a flat set. Work is a practical hierarchy of concerns and JIRA never made much progress away from a checklist (same as ASANA, Rike, etc).
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > Anything beyond that is up to the implementors "Implementors". Anything that needs to be "implemented" is either a) not finished, b) too big and complex, or c) both. Dunno for sure how much less code Jira has compared to, say, MS Excel or Adobe Acrobat, but I could imagine it might be up to an order of magnitude. But you don't have to "implement" those; you just install them.
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    Better comparison product is MS Teams, not Excel.
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      Yes and no. Yes, it's more like JIRA. But no, that's missing the point: That's what makes it an equally stupid "Enterprise product". Excel, OTOH, is arguably more essential to more corporations, and yet you don't see big international consultancies snap up contracts for six-year-long "Excel Implementation" projects with Fortune 500 corporations. You do see that for SAP, Oracle Business Suite (or whatever it's called nowadays), etc. They're products that you don't just install and use; they need to be "implemented". JIRA is more like that. Or, IOW: I wasn't comparing, but contrasting. (Which, OK, is also a kind of comparison. But for this kind, it's Excel that is the better example than Teams.)

msla 4y ago

"The tool can't do it" is an excuse. Excuses aren't tolerated. Now, make it happen. Tools can't prevent bad management because bad managers don't care about tools. They care about getting what they want, and if the tool doesn't enable it, that's their underlings' problem, not theirs. Jira doesn't stand in their way because nothing stands in their way.

CRConrad 4y ago
That's precisely why Jira sucks: Because it doesn't stand in their way. And why you want simpler software, which by not being able to bend to their misguided will, does stand in their way.

oneplane 4y ago

JIRA really doesn't encourage anything in any direction except writing down what you are up to in a reasonably friendly way. Anything beyond that is up to the implementors, and there is nothing in the world that can prevent bad top-down behaviour within a company.

Supermancho 4y ago
> JIRA really doesn't encourage anything in any direction Given the amount of effort you devoted to replying to multiple posts, it feels disingenuous when you make an obvious and inaccurate statement as fact. There is very little dependency graph organization (eg subtasks), which isn't reflected in most of the UI anyway as JIRA does push toward treating all tickets as a flat set. Work is a practical hierarchy of concerns and JIRA never made much progress away from a checklist (same as ASANA, Rike, etc).
CRConrad 4y ago
> Anything beyond that is up to the implementors "Implementors". Anything that needs to be "implemented" is either a) not finished, b) too big and complex, or c) both. Dunno for sure how much less code Jira has compared to, say, MS Excel or Adobe Acrobat, but I could imagine it might be up to an order of magnitude. But you don't have to "implement" those; you just install them.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  Better comparison product is MS Teams, not Excel.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    Yes and no. Yes, it's more like JIRA. But no, that's missing the point: That's what makes it an equally stupid "Enterprise product". Excel, OTOH, is arguably more essential to more corporations, and yet you don't see big international consultancies snap up contracts for six-year-long "Excel Implementation" projects with Fortune 500 corporations. You do see that for SAP, Oracle Business Suite (or whatever it's called nowadays), etc. They're products that you don't just install and use; they need to be "implemented". JIRA is more like that. Or, IOW: I wasn't comparing, but contrasting. (Which, OK, is also a kind of comparison. But for this kind, it's Excel that is the better example than Teams.)