💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 29368446 captured on 2021-11-30 at 20:18:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
So, I click on "How it works" and I get a headline saying "Example: measuring efforts aimed at creating customer value, throughput, and risks mitigation", followed by a list re-stating the same corporate-speak gobbledygook.
Further below, I see something about labelling Git changes and then suddenly achieving "actionable insights".
Pricing starts at $300 a month (!)
Am I missing something for failing to see a tangible benefit for the cost here?
Hi, author here! Appreciate the comment, we'll work on our copy.
Most companies have a quarterly planning cycle which starts with setting goals, ends with collecting results, and in middle is most often a blurry mess of juggling between priorities and the reality of the day-to-day.
Our customers choose us because getting consolidated visibility on how we allocate engineering efforts in a way engineers don't hate is an unsolved problem. Yet without it, your decisions and plans are very much based on hope and gut feelings. Our belief is that most organizations are held back by a lack of alignment, and a disconnect between planning and execution: if we can help prevent just one team chasing the wrong topic for a month, then the cost is well amortized, and for large organizations that is a no brainer.
We also have small startups adopting us because it helps them shine a light on the engineers work in a way that the non-technical groups understand. Their use case is less about decision making (because the uncertainty isn't so high when the number of engineers is <10), and more about communicating the value of their work.
Hope that helps!
the widespread rejection of JIRA
I wouldn't call a single tweet about an individual experience widespread rejection. Jira is a great tool in many ways and how much it sucks working with it only depends on what you force your employees to do with it.
For instance we use it to capture requirements and progress only and people are generally happy using it that way.
You're right. I made a generalization out of multiple threads here on HN and on Twitter (another example coming to mind being this one
https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1440242068102680595
), but only cherry-picked one to illustrate the post.
The point I'm to make in this post is that _regardless_ of JIRA qualities (or lack thereof), the way many companies try to use it for conflicting purposes is a recipe for failure. Using JIRA for what it is designed to do is perfectly fine :)