That's exactly why. Bad JIRA implementations can easily incur 5-10 seconds of wait time just loading the page alone. JIRA as a tool allows everything under the sun for management to configure, which makes management do exactly that, configure everything under the sun.
It's not unheard of having to tick 15-25 fields + checkboxes + dropdowns (most of which could've been autofilled or cut and made lean) because management likes it that way. I hope I don't have to explain why a crowd largely composed of "I hate doing the same manual work more than once" collectively sighs at this notion.
Then you add onto that a workflow which requires one to open JIRA multiple times, multiple stages etc. and these people end up spending a lot of time on something they feel is incredibly inefficient. Great way to tank morale.
"But that's a problem with the use of the tool, not the tool itself!"
And we've seen this story a thousand times. If tools allow for weird things, weird things happen. Beyond that, I don't really see why people prefer the Atlassian stack which shows similar issues all-over and is a hassle to cobble together, when GitHub and GitLab do these things out of the box. The common complaint is "well GH/GL don't have X and we really need X", when the organization has never tried doing things without X.
That's exactly why. Bad JIRA implementations can easily incur 5-10 seconds of wait time just loading the page alone. JIRA as a tool allows everything under the sun for management to configure, which makes management do exactly that, configure everything under the sun.
It's not unheard of having to tick 15-25 fields + checkboxes + dropdowns (most of which could've been autofilled or cut and made lean) because management likes it that way. I hope I don't have to explain why a crowd largely composed of "I hate doing the same manual work more than once" collectively sighs at this notion.
Then you add onto that a workflow which requires one to open JIRA multiple times, multiple stages etc. and these people end up spending a lot of time on something they feel is incredibly inefficient. Great way to tank morale.
"But that's a problem with the use of the tool, not the tool itself!"
And we've seen this story a thousand times. If tools allow for weird things, weird things happen. Beyond that, I don't really see why people prefer the Atlassian stack which shows similar issues all-over and is a hassle to cobble together, when GitHub and GitLab do these things out of the box. The common complaint is "well GH/GL don't have X and we really need X", when the organization has never tried doing things without X.