Ability to customise workflow status for requirements

You can define your own status for almost everything except requirements. Why is that? seems like nonsense. We code against requirements not features, so I want to track the granular updates to requirements ... and I cannot - AHA wont let me customise the status flow for a requirement, nor add a custom field to show the progress. Seems like a ridiculous oversight given how much flexibility exists against features etc.

  • Andrew Ardron
  • Sep 9 2016
  • Shipped
Release time frame 1 month
  • Attach files
  • Adam Bowen commented
    September 26, 2016 19:26

    I can't believe you don't already have this.  +1 from me.

  • Zach Rose commented
    October 03, 2016 23:15

    We have a strong need for this; our workflows for Feature-sized things are quite different than our workflows for requirement-sized things, and forcing the statuses to be the same cause headaches.

  • Harneet Singh Gandhi commented
    October 13, 2016 08:35

    If this is implemented, it'll make the tool very very effective.

  • Eric Sullender commented
    November 17, 2016 18:29

    I would like to be able to mark requirements as 'must have', 'nice to have', 'for future consideration', etc

  • Karen Wittenberg commented
    February 13, 2017 19:11

    Please add this enhancement. When we add enhancement features, we include as-is functionality in the list of requirements to ensure our developers that we are aware of the relationship between the existing functionality and the new requirements, and to ensure it is part of the testing plan and user documentation.

  • Mark Petty commented
    February 27, 2017 17:30

    This seems broken to me. For us we need features to have a comprehensive list statuses, however requirements have a very basic workflow To Do, In Progress, QA, Done.


  • Lori Carbonara commented
    December 13, 2017 14:58

    Not being able to do this creates "noise" in our process.  In fact, I would like to be able to remove the status from the requirement since we really do our tracking at a feature level.

  • Amanda Davros commented
    December 21, 2017 18:03

    I am utilizing the requirements from a BA perspective and would really like to be able to have separate requirement workflows to manage. 

  • Guest commented
    December 28, 2017 08:33

    This is something blocking me from implementing Requirement <-> Story integration since in my Aha as well as JIRA implementation, we have different set of statuses for Epic vs Story (and same is the case with Features and Requirements in Aha). Need this resolved on priority.

  • Tom Beck commented
    January 12, 2018 17:43

    I would like to put in another plug for this.  This enhancement is very much needed.  Like the author of this idea, Requirements equate to Product Backlog Items for my team.  In fact, I have integrations set up to sync to TFS where Features = Features and Requirements = Product Backlog Items.  I also customized the terminology such that I show "Product backlog item" in lieu of "Requirement".  The challenge is that completion of the PBI does not mean that the feature is done.  I can change the status of the PBI to Done but there's an unfortunate trigger that fires when there is only one PBI, which sets the Feature to Done and I have remember to change it back to what it was.  I envision a different workflow for PBIs (requirements) than I do for Features.  Being able to manage them independently would be helpful.  I don't think we need to worry too much about correlation between the requirement statuses and the feature statuses, if it's hard to design for that.  If I had to choose, I'd take independent statuses over status synchronization.  Thanks for listening!

  • Guest commented
    January 24, 2018 23:01

    We do have need for this.  Thanks

  • Lori Carbonara commented
    February 08, 2018 13:57

    Any word on if this will be implemented? This would be huge for my organization and a much-needed enhancement.