We really need this capability to ensure our planning is aligned all the way through our execution. As a work around right now I have created a feature report that filters the features based on the Initiative value assigned at the Epic level. I then bulk edit the features for each Initiative on a regular basis to ensure this data is aligned and flowing into Jira, as we map the Initiative value from the Feature to Jira to ensure we are time tracking against the correct Initiative.
Our org is running into reporting problems and added data entry time due to this discrepancy between epic and feature initiatives/goals. It'd be amazing to have a setting that allows us to inherit I/Gs (and maybe even other fields) from the top-down as it would reduce the need to develop workarounds and perform data hygiene checks all the time.
As a user who builds out product concepts from the top down, starting with Initiatives, Epics, then features as I build out the solution, I expect the lower level items (Features) to inherit the hierarchy from the object to which I am attaching the features. It is confusing when pulling up features and they show no connection to the Initiative with which I am working or, when working with a feature and I want to know the initiative from which it came, it does not show. It just seems incomplete and disjointed as is.
We really need this capability to ensure our planning is aligned all the way through our execution. As a work around right now I have created a feature report that filters the features based on the Initiative value assigned at the Epic level. I then bulk edit the features for each Initiative on a regular basis to ensure this data is aligned and flowing into Jira, as we map the Initiative value from the Feature to Jira to ensure we are time tracking against the correct Initiative.
Our org is running into reporting problems and added data entry time due to this discrepancy between epic and feature initiatives/goals. It'd be amazing to have a setting that allows us to inherit I/Gs (and maybe even other fields) from the top-down as it would reduce the need to develop workarounds and perform data hygiene checks all the time.
As a user who builds out product concepts from the top down, starting with Initiatives, Epics, then features as I build out the solution, I expect the lower level items (Features) to inherit the hierarchy from the object to which I am attaching the features. It is confusing when pulling up features and they show no connection to the Initiative with which I am working or, when working with a feature and I want to know the initiative from which it came, it does not show. It just seems incomplete and disjointed as is.