We are starting development with Jira. With a team of 5 engineers handling multiple projects and collaborative work, should we configure Jira by projects or teams? When are Epics most useful?
I have found that organizing Jira around project streams often works best when teams are small and work on multiple overlapping initiatives. In my experience, setting up projects rather than strictly segregating by teams allows for greater flexibility, especially when developers contribute to several efforts concurrently. Epics become most valuable when used to capture large features or strategic objectives that drive the project forward, grouping related tasks and ensuring alignment on overall goals. This approach has helped maintain clarity and efficiency in our workflow while supporting both individual contributions and collaborative efforts.
In my view, configuring Jira by projects with a team-based overlay often proves to be the most effective approach in a small, collaborative setting. During a previous project, we organized our overall workflow into specific projects while using shared boards to monitor team progress. This hybrid strategy ensured that each project was well-structured, yet flexible enough to accommodate cross-functional contributions. Epics were used as a mechanism to connect discrete work items with larger strategic objectives, acting as a roadmap that linked day-to-day tasks with the broader vision.
i prefer structing jira by projcts while overlaying team boards. epics work great for tracking big mile stones. not perfect but it gives clarity and avoids task overlap. sometimes mixin approaches pays off, even if its a bit messy
Based on my experience, an integrated approach works well in environments where teams handle multiple projects simultaneously. Configuring Jira around projects while incorporating team-specific boards has allowed us to track work effectively without losing sight of overall project objectives. In our previous endeavors, epics proved particularly useful when they served as connectors between teams working on interrelated features. This approach not only provided a clear structure for project management but also maintained flexibility in adapting to evolving team dynamics and complex project demands over time.