Add Features to multiple initiatives

My organization is also in need of this capability, otherwise our roadmaps are misleading and inaccurate because work items won't roll-up appropriately. Although we haven't implemented capacity planning at this time, we wouldn't be able to because the data would be inaccurate if a feature could not be part of multiple initiatives, effetely weighting that feature as a higher priority option. Perhaps adding a feature/epic to multiple initiatives is a capability behind a toggle - that way, organizations can determine the trade-offs of having an accurate roadmap view vs. issues outlined in the admin response.

Our organization is highly matrixed, and we have projects (epics) that directly ladder up to multiple initiatives. Along with the standard Strategic Roadmap view where we can see what falls under an initiative, we would LOVE to be able to track the reverse - which initiatives are each project/epics laddering up to. Without being able to link in a many-to-many manner, neither of our roadmap needs can be met. This greatly diminishes the value of a Aha for us, since we are effetely unable to manage our actual roadmap data in an accurate way with the tool.

I'm using the work around, but it is not ideal. The whole point of this request is to allow a feature (or epic) to support multiple initiatives in the business. Dependencies and links are not well supported in roadmap views which is the whole purpose of how we use this tool.

This is a real problem in that we have so many features that support multiple initiatives and have no effective way to show or track this... The reasons given for not doing this is not holding water...

So how does one do an initiative roadmap then? I was hoping to be able to see how a given initiative laid out on the roadmap, but if the features are not there, then this would not work, right? Is there a word around or solution for that?

I still want this, we've been struggling because you can't do this. I agree with Scott Shultz. It's common to have this kind of relationship and we're forced to work around Aha! because of this limitation. The "limitations that may not be apparent on the surface" is a cop out.. it seems practical for the very reason given. One feature does contribute to multiple initiatives, the knowledge that one piece of work and effort to build a feature would benefit multiple initiatives is fantastic and it's a reason to prioritize the delivery of that feature.

Likewise, the "issue" of visualizing all your initiatives and features in a single roadmap is imminently solvable and beneficial. Show it twice, put an asterisk on each one with a mouse-over and don't double-count the effort in a roll-up. The ability to show the reuse of one feature to deliver on multiple initiatives would be a huge win.

I agree with several of the comments as to the need to link an a Capability / Feature to multiple Initiatives. What is needed is an "Initiatives" field (plural) that works exactly like the Goals field works where you can select multiple goals and the "Belongs To" relationship is automatically established.

Business driver for this is that you need the "Belongs To" relationship so you can then use List and Pivot reports (for example to define a roadmap view that then leverages groupings by Initiative) and also provides far more format and output control. If you manually set the relationship using record links, you are limited to a Dependency report and the Dependency report does not offer the flexibility you have with a List / Pivot report.

I understand this decision. My current workaround is to list relationships between initiatives and choosing a "primary" initiative wherein I list the related capabilities. It seems like there's potential to have the same features/capabilities appear multiple times in given roadmap or to include some kind of toggle based feature where you could change the views so that multiple initiatives pointing to the same feature or capability could be viewed. I'll be interested to see how this evolves.

It irritates me that a feature can be linked to multiple goals, but not to multiple initiatives. I get the Admin Response above, but with this background you should simply remove the link to goals, as features will be automatically linked to goals via the initiative they relate to. The initiative already relates to multiple goals!

It is very limiting for a feature or master feature to link to only one initiative. In the real world it is very normal for features to be linked to multiple initiatives, as evidenced by the number of comments in this thread. Adding an additional custom field doesn't solve the problem. Please fix this limitation. 

Following on this thread...it would be helpful to get some additional beyond the above Admin response. I will say that adding a custom field is a good work around, however, it may become a large burden for an admin to manage a large amount of fields in time. With respect to the link feature, I do not think this a strong feature in its current state. It is a bit limiting in respect to how it is viewed. Given that the response was issued in Q4 2018, and that Aha has made some strategic choices around its position as an end-to-end management tool for strategy and requirements (i.e. inclusion of new workspace types), any additional guidance from the team is greatly appreciated

The problem is about reporting, this could still be solved without breaking the future development.

What about including the "record links" concept in the reporting structure, so that we can pull related object data using the record links instead (or in addition to) the object hardcoded links?

The problem is to report a feature against multiple large initiatives.

This idea refers one solution for this problem, which is to link a feature to multiple initiatives through the feature->initiative attribute. Understanding that this would break your solution, could you still provide a solution to the original problem "out of the box" / without requiring use of custom fields?

What about including the "record links" concept into your reporting solution?

Thank you

This feature would really help us deal with a strategy aiming to integrate disparate product lines through multiple initiatives and consequently have major benefits to our prioritization system - identifying features tied to multiple key strategic initiatives

Thanks for the explanation!  Knowing this won't be implemented helps clarify how we should be best representing the initiative object.

In retrospect, only a madman would want this feature. 😀

(But you were very kind in your explanation)

Idea++.

Any feedback from Aha! side regarding this topic?

We're a Fortune 100 and love using Aha. This feature is important to us; any progress on this?

Please let us know when this will be available or not; either way we need to know. It will impact our use of the Aha! tool moving forward

Lack of this feature is limiting further expansion of Aha! within our global organization.