RELATED IDEAS
Make the new Time Frames feature actually know about Time
The new Time Frames feature allows us to tag goals and initiatives with specific timeframes. These timeframes are user-defined rather than system-defined, but the examples are fairly common and are shown to work across several temporal scopes: quarterly (3Q2016), bi-annual (2H2016) or annual (2016).
There is also nice filtering functionality that allows you to filter based on these timeframes. However the Time Frame field doesn't really understand about time and thus can't infer that (for example) 3Q2016 is "part of" 2016. As a result, if you filter on 2016, you will not see items tagged with 3Q2016.
The enhancement would be to pre-define some basic Time Frame types and make sure their hierarchical relationship is either known or can be defined, so that the above filtering would do the right thing: filtering on 2016 should show goals and initiatives tagged with 2016, 1H2016, 2H2016, 1Q2016, 2Q2016, 3Q2016 or 4Q2016. For non-standard time frames, organizing them into a hierarchy should enable the same capability.
See comment at the bottom of http://blog.aha.io/index.php/time-based-goals-initiatives
© 2024 Aha! Labs Inc.•All rights reserved
I've been working with times and have the same feedback as the others. We try to create SMART goals, so we were interested in the time frame field, but the current implementation isn't very useful.
Time frames should at least be hierarchal, but preferably have a concept of time so that filtering by 2016 would include any goal that should be achieved in 2016 whether it spans the year, half, or a quarter.
Agreed that another custom field or tag could be used to group related items together.
I"d agree that grouping would be very helpful. For our users, if they see '2016' and '2016-Q1' they would expect the latter to be shown when filtering by the former.
I guess the feature request would be to allow grouping of related time frames. The fact that you call them "time frames" does suggest a certain level of dependency, and connecting time frames either in sequence (list) or hierarchy (tree) seem fairly common organizing principles.
Without some level of special treatment of Time Frames as a data element, aren't these just tags? In fact, couldn't one just use tags to "group related strategy items together"?
We have intentionally not linked the time frames to actual dates. This is for two reasons: