@David, it's clear that your entire user base utilizing the server version is looking for Roadmaps, we can keep going on debating this topic for another year and collecting so-called feedback but to what avail? This topic has been discussed for at least 9 months now with absolutely no positive outlook from Atlassian in regards to providing such a simple feature. Could you please explain the hesitation?

We keep going in circles around the same three topics:

1. Server users want Roadmaps
2. Server users not interested in Portfolio as it's an overkill (also item 3 applies here)
3. License structure on server is not suitable for big data centers with a large user base, so plugins similar to Roadmaps can't be utilized

It's unfortunate that most of us can't switch to the cloud version due to many restrictions surrounding audits and data security. And from the look of it, even if Atlassian starts the planning phase now for such a feature it would take at least another year or two to make it available to server users.

@David, the assumption comes from how Jira software is advertised. Jira cloud and server are presented on Atlassian's web-site as really a single product with two different deployment options. Most of the product information is presented without any distinction between cloud and server. It's only once you begin to dig deep in the documentation that you become aware of any differences other than how it's hosted, and even then, there aren't any readily-available comparisons of features. Roadmaps are even advertised as one of the primary features for Jira software in general on this page: https://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/features

If these really are different products with different feature-sets, I think Atlassian should make a clear distinction in marketing materials about the differences between them.

@David, Setting the rest of this aside, one great example of where the expected parity may be formed is by going through the documentation. Half of the time, the default page version is Cloud, so users will expect that feature to exist. As a Data Center user, I've had this come up with:

• Road maps
• Agile/Scrum Issue types (i.e. Initiatives, Themes, etc., particularly as they are shown on the Agile Coach pages)
• Some other guides where showing users how to do things aren't consistent. I realize there was a major UI design to Cloud somewhat recently, so I constantly get users asking where that UI is or why information isn't framed certain ways.

That being said, we are currently 'piloting' Portfolio for Jira. It seems to be really useful for a very small subset of our company's user base. (at least currently). I anticipate it will grow, but it really is overkill for many teams that aren't running yet running large-scale Agile or have industry-required processes that make Portfolio not a great fit. I don't think it 'helps' that the documentation for Jira Cloud's roadmaps make it seem significantly simpler to use for most teams than Porfolio does. To the uninitiated, Portfolio for Jira really is an intimidating package.

I genuinely appreciate the ongoing feedback from everyone. I can't really comment on pricing or licensing as that is not something I'm involved with.

However, I think it's worth addressing the assumption that there has to be feature parity between Jira in Cloud and Server. I'd be interested to know where this assumption comes from? The reality is that the different product offerings have different objectives and features that are developed for Cloud may not be available for Server. 

I also think it's worth highlighting that roadmaps are only available in next-gen Cloud projects (so depending on what project type you use in Cloud you still might not be able to use them).

Whilst none of the above directly addresses the request, hopefully it at least helps to clarify the rationale behind the decision.

+1 to Joe and Matt

Very disappointed that Jira Team can't do more to help with this much needed feature.

I think the key point here is that this feature already exists for Jira Cloud. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that Jira Server will have feature parity with the Cloud offering, even if new features come to Server later.

If Atlassian isn't interested in giving the same level of support for its Server customers that it does for Cloud, I imagine many people who are unable to use Cloud will look elsewhere.

Matt (comment above) and others hit the nail on the head. Biggest deterrent is the absurd pricing structure of all Jira plugins. Why can't you all figure out a better way to license products and addons so that customers pay for only the subset of users that need them instead of the entire user base. We are now in the process of finding products outside of Jira to help us manage our roadmaps which is very inconvenient and disappointing.

Agreed that Price seems to be the biggest deterrent to using portfolio. It is our reason we stopped using it when we had to upgrade our license and why I started following this thread.

I would estimate that Portfolio is used by 10% of the total user base that is licensed in most organizations but its priced at 40-50% of the base Jira cost.  

Significantly reducing the cost of portfolio would be a compromise because it isn't the ideal solution and teams need basic roadmap support but aren't willing to pay the full price for portfolio.

If I could license portfolio for 10% of my Jira user base at a significant discount, I would do that as well. 

Too bad there is no way to +1 a comment in Jira. I'm curious if other teams would agree to this. 

Thanks for the reply David, but a big part of the frustration is that nothing is being done to address the actual issues identified by your feedback request:

1. Many customers would like a roadmap but it's far too expensive to purchase Portfolio for that one feature
2. Many (presumably the same) customers cannot move to cloud for a variety of reasons

The simple answer given was "buy this expensive thing you already said you don't need/can't afford". This is where the frustration lies. You asked for feedback, we gave it, the follow up advice didn't address the issues.

Everyone understands that you can't implement every feature, but this is a standard feature of your cloud offering, and some parity in your offerings does not seems like an unreasonable request.

ronald.sietzema - I can understand your frustration with this, but the reason for asking for the feedback was to understand if the people voting for this request were aware of Portfolio for Jira (...and if they were, why they weren't using it). If the problem was a lack of awareness of Portfolio then that would have been something that we could have easily addressed - it sounds like awareness isn't the problem, but we wouldn't have known without asking.

The feedback provided is taken seriously and is valued but that doesn't necessarily mean that every request will be implemented.

...why ask for user feedback, if you kill the idea anyway? 

doesn't feel like the comments here are been taken seriously...

...this is very disappointing and you are playing the cards right into the hands of the people in our organisation that want Sharepoint instead. You are not helping us who wants to work with Confluence and Jira and ensure even more and - and we may only have a on-premises solution.

Your choice to let Cloud and Server diverge to this extent is a big mistake from our point of view. And breaking the promise we started out with years and years ago.

That said, we strongly encourage you to check out our latest Portfolio for Jira Server and Data Center 3.0 platform release. In it, we have completely reimagined Portfolio to make it more simple and intuitive to use, flexible to your planning style and process, and transparent for all users. We think you'll like what you see.

Funny. People gave you a good amount of reasons on why they will not switch to Portfolio and you recommend it again. 

AFTER Atlassian Open is through.

Well, that's disappointing.

Wow. So one of the hottest, most voted and watched Jira Server feature requests just gets a 'No, buy our other incredibly expensive product' instead. Seems the extensive feedback everyone gave was simply ignored, which begs the question of why keep asking for it?

As mentioned before, many organisations are unable to go down the cloud route or have invested heavily in server products, and therefore are essentially punished with huge extra costs for a ton of features they don't need, just to use a feature that they do. 

I came back from Atlassian Open feeling energised that Atlassian listens to its user base across all products and provides for them. The response here would tend to indicate otherwise - perhaps it's simply true that Atlassian are moving away from server products.

Apologies for the passive-aggressive tone of this message, but this is an incredibly disappointing outcome - which at least 367 of your customers would presumably agree with.

Proper marketplace link: https://marketplace.atlassian.com/search?product=jira&query=roadmap

Hi Jakub,

This is not making sense. It seems we are being pushed to buy portfolio just to have a roadmap feature.

We have a licence on 10,000 users in Jira and we did try portfolio and no one liked that. It is an overhead to Jira and also very expensive.

Please respect your loyal customers and compete with other applications in market. I am fighting on daily basis to keep Jira as major agile tools and not getting users to switch to better UI tools like DevOps Azure. If we are making an effort to keep your application sellable then Jira team should also provide good feature so that it can fulfil user requirements and keep their experience about the application at the best.

Hello everyone,

First of all, thank you for sharing with us that you like the roadmaps feature in Jira Cloud. We love it too!

As of today, the roadmaps feature is only available for the next-gen project type in Jira Software Cloud. We do not have plans to bring the roadmaps feature or next-gen project type from Jira Cloud to Jira Server or Jira Data Center.

Atlassian's Cloud and Self-hosted product offerings are developed independently, which allows us to make the best prioritization decisions for each set of customers. For the self-hosted versions of Jira, this meant taking a different approach involving supporting more advanced planing, cross-project dependency management, capacity planning and global releases. All of which require a specialized tool - Portfolio for Jira Server and Data Center.

While we are not committed to building out new roadmapping capabilities directly within Jira Server or Data Center, our team is working closely with the Portfolio for Jira team to improve the overlapping functionality of these offerings.

That said, we strongly encourage you to check out our latest Portfolio for Jira Server and Data Center 3.0 platform release. In it, we have completely reimagined Portfolio to make it more simple and intuitive to use, flexible to your planning style and process, and transparent for all users. We think you'll like what you see.

Alternatively, we suggest you to check out the Atlassian Marketplace for other solutions to meet your needs.

To learn more about our recent investments in Jira Server and Data Center, please check out our dashboards showing Recently resolved issues and Current work and future plans.

Best regards,
The Jira Server and Data Center Team

Hi David

We had two concurrent instances of our Atlassian products (Confluence/JIRA), both cloud and server. The server instance was initially the primary resource for our German/European offices but last year we spent considerable time/effort/money migrating everything over, as we wanted to consolidate and cloud simply didn't fit the bill (no choice of data location, little to no enterprise level features, unsuitable SSO, huge cost per user).

Frankly, if we'd known that many of those various features were to be implemented or issues solved within the year it would likely have influenced our decision but we are where we are. This obviously means that we are very much invested in server and will be for a several years, so moving back to cloud is unfeasible at this time.

Additionally, a (perceived if not actual) lack of transparency on the future of server products does not help, and makes decisions on the technological landscape within our business more difficult.

Thanks
Joe

Hi David, 

I have tried to implement Portfolio (2.0), but the most management teams choose Structure.Gantt, because it was simpel, a one view solution, where you see hierarchy, timeline, resources and capacity, these are the basics for implementing SAFe. Other teams and smaler departments even wanted it more simpel solutions, they use a variety of solutions; StoryMapping (easy agile), just a Kanban board with epics or confluence page with roadmap functions. 

To me its just 'Ease of use' over 'functionality' that kills Portfolio. A roadmap feature needs to be 'sold' to the Business not Development, if it were up to the dev site, we would have implemented it. 

Our program is in the defense industry and therefore requires an on-premises solution. No government customer I'm aware of has ever been ok with hosting proprietary program data on external servers. I don't see this changing. However it is worth pointing out Amazon is jumping through some amazing hoops attempting to get access to this customer base by setting up what they call GovCloud. https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/

What Benjamin said is probably a valid argument for at least 50% of current Jira server customers, if not even more.

We all customized the solution so it suits our needs with different add-ons and apps, plus integrations with other systems. Going backwards with cloud is not really an option 

I can imagine though, smaller teams not using complex processes are enjoying their lives on Cloud with almost 0 worries.

@David Draper : We were thinking about moving our stuff to the Cloud next year. the hurdles were:

• Two Apps we currently use a lot would have to be migrated to a new solution, because they are not available in the Cloud
• Migration of Jira (either to the Cloud or merging two instances) is hell if you have a good bunch of Apps using their own AO tables
• GDPR - Atlassian struggled a bit with that. I somewhere lost track if they made their Cloud offerings GDPR compliant
• The move to the Cloud would have to be accompanied with moving our user base or integrating them with Atlassian Access to still have our Company 2FA available -> additional cost for something I have set up completely on premise. 
• All links, filters, etc. in Confluence and Jira have to be adopted. And it won't matter if I move just Jira into the Cloud or add Bitbucket and Confluence as well. I have to script around that
• And again: pricing. With Atlassians new prices I'd have to pay 4 times of what we currently pay for our (mostly maintained) Server licenses. 5$/User might seem cheap when you directly compare that to other vendors. But what makes Jira special is that I can expand it with the Apps I need to customize it, while all of those Apps are still in the standard. I don't have to code myself the screens or the reports I need, when I can just get them from the marketplace. 
  With the new Cloud pricing scheme, I simply can't just put some Apps in and still run on a competitive price. I lose a lot of flexibility there. Especially since even Jira Cloud lacks some basic functionality that's been requested for years now. I still have to work around that using Apps. 
  We are currently running a Jira Server with 1900 Users including Portfolio (and yes, it's Overkill for what we actually do with it),  and about 10-15 user installed Apps. We are able to restore lost data to the minute in case of emergency and so on. Including all work and support we deliver, we are able to do support that for 5€/User. In Jira Cloud we'd have to go for 20€/User. To be fair: in part this is because the monthly pricing of App vendors in Atlassian Cloud is insane, too. 

Thanks to everyone that has replied so far to my question - I appreciate the responses, keep them coming please!

The feedback so far mostly suggests an unwillingness to pay for Portfolio in addition to Jira (in some cases because Portfolio offers more functionality than is needed). It would also be useful to understand the reasons for not migrating to Jira Cloud in order to have access the roadmap features if Portfolio is too expensive/too complex?

For our org we took a deep dive on Portfolio and ran a trial internally (however this was Portfolio 2.x not 3.x). The overwhelming feedback was that Portofolio was 1) too complex and "fiddly" 2) imposed a level of rigor that teams were unable or not willing to adopt 3) imposed a methodology and approach teams were unable or not willing to adopt.

The teams were looking for something that would help with quarterly roadmap planning that integrated well with Jira. In short we were looking for something like the Jira Cloud roadmap tool but Portfolio was like MS Project.

For now we've settled on 1) Easy Agile Roadmaps (3rd party plugin) and 2) Contorting Scrum/Kanban boards into quarterly planning tools using clever queries and labels.

I would love to use Portfolio, but not all 3000 of my users have the same need.

Maybe less than 100 executives would need Portfolio's capabilities.

If you change the licencing structure of Portfolio to a per-user basis instead of buckets, it would be more popular.

Portfolio is an overkill for us. We just need to plan in the roadmap style. 

Two reasons we are passing on Portfolio and would prefer this feature in Server:

• Only need to plan epics in a roadmap style. Don't need all other features (and complexity) of Portfolio at this time.
• Your 4th reason - additional cost.

So for Atlassian this is simple:

• Cloud costumers get this for free;
• Server costumers need to buy an overkill addon for more than $4000 (100 users) just to have a basic epic roadmap

It's the same madness as the Project Archive feature that was only delivered to Data Center costumers. 

Why the fragmentation?

Why can't Jira Server and Jira Cloud be the same product but one in the cloud and the other on-premise? Don't you guys get enough money from us, paying Server costumers?

Hi David

Same as many of the above. Whilst Portfolio is obviously an excellent tool, it does much more than is needed for the large majority of our projects, and therefore cost to implement at the 2000 user tier becomes prohibitive because we simply don't need all of the features. A couple of further points in no particular order:

• I believe that the key feature for many businesses is being able to visualise and manipulate epics in a roadmap style
• Many existing teams want to go lightweight and not complex (Roadmaps is lightweight, Portfolio is complex)
• Roadmaps act as a great bridge for teams new to product thinking, allowing a greater usage and penetration of Jira by more traditional teams

More than happy to elaborate further on these topics.

Thanks
Joe

Our situation is similar to Olivia's. When we looked at Portfolio 3.0, there was too much overhead associated with an imperfect solution to what we wanted - simple roadmaps. The cost was a secondary consideration, but we are certainly not inclined to pay a non-trivial amount for a less than ideal solution with a bunch of features we have no intention of using.

Hi, for us it is a combination - part the costing but also when we have trialled portfolio it was to clever for what we wanted and took to much faff to set up and still didnt 100% just do what we needed. We wanted a simple roadmap solution. 

Hi David,

we are using Portfolio on our Server instance. But the things we are actually using from your product are just a bit more than that roadmap feature. Portfolio offers way more, but at a steep pricing (which just got even steeper). 

Portfolio is way more than Roadmaps. But it is not as much as e.g. Jira Align. I am not a manager. But from what I recognize in the companies I know, it all burns down to:

• have some small tool available to manage some schedules over projects (Roadmaps probably fits well here) or
• have an all-in-one tool, that I am able to manage ressources, budgets, schedules etc. in the 

So in my case, I'd go for 4), too.

At the beginning of reading it was 1), but now that I have read up on it: 4)

Definitely the 4th reason.

We have 1000+ projects with 2500k users, but only a handful of people would need roadmaps. You can guess the difference it means for our company to buy a Portfolio 3.0 or just upgrade the server to a newer version where this feature is implemented.

Hello David Draper, 

for me the fourth alternative is our reason why we want the roadmap feature in Jira Server. We need a simple and affordable way to create a roadmap.

Kind Regards

Elke

Hi all, 

I'm one of the team leads for Portfolio for Jira Server and am interested in understanding more about this request.

I have a question for all the watchers and commenters on this issue. Portfolio 3.0 was released earlier this year with a completely new user interface which has similar roadmap capabilities to what is available for Jira Cloud. When we announced these capabilities (https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Portfolio-for-Jira-articles/Introducing-a-new-planning-experience-in-Portfolio-for-Jira/ba-p/944996) there was a huge demand to bring these capabilities to Cloud (despite the roadmap features on Cloud being announced at the same time).

I'd like to try and understand if the requests to bring Jira Roadmaps to server (rather than using Portfolio 3.0) are because:

• people aren't aware of Portfolio for Jira Server
• people are aware of Portfolio but aren't aware of the updates in 3.0 that provide similar roadmap features
• people are aware of Portfolio 3.0 but feel that it doesn't solve their problems in the way that Jira Roadmaps would
• people are aware of Portfolio 3.0 and feel that it would solve their problems but aren't willing to pay for the additional license

Just to set expectations, I'm not in a position to bring roadmaps to server but I am interested in understanding the demand being articulated here.

If you're interested in learning more about Portfolio 3.0 then you can find a webinar on it here: https://www.atlassian.com/webinars/software/portfolio-for-jira-3-webinar

Regards,

Dave

This is an amazing feature. Most of the customers I work with have data privacy requirements that prohibit us from hosting in Atlassian's cloud environments. Please make this feature available in server version.

We have a lot of clients (financial institutions, authorities, lawyers etc.) that are under privacy and security regulations, so we could never move our Jira Software instance to the clound. Please make this feature available in the server version.

keep pushing

Was at the Atlassian Open in Vienna at the beginning of this week and spoke to the Jira team there. I suggested that it felt like Server was getting left behind but they assured me that they see the will not lose focus on Server at the moment, and they are very aware of this particular issue. I can only say that we need to keep pushing for this feature in Server via this issue.

:*(

This macro will reduce the workload informing customer of the upcoming product releases. 

Hi,

it seems to me that Atlassian is more focused on gaining Cloud Clients...

I can simply tell that we are not able to move to the cloud as all our clients are under privacy and security regulations.

We are simply not able.

It is sad the we have to move to other possibilities and plugins to get the ability to manage our life cycle.

Please support the server version!

Cheers

Same feeling here.

Get hyped by the feature \o/

Only available for Jira Cloud u_u'

Hello, We are in a process to upgrade our Jira server to the latest release to get this 'Roadmap' feature available in our environment. I still don't understand why this feature is only released on Cloud version, the most confusing part is that we don't have any information if this feature will be released on the Server version. Please send some positive signals in prioritizing this feature for next server release.

I just don't see how this feature was developed for Cloud first and is only "gathering interest" for server.

Server teams are the big companies that actually need this feature in the first place. Please prioritize this asap!

I agree with @Joe Johnson and @Michael Nicholson; we are very much in the same boat. I have had a hard time trying to move fulling into the Atlassian suite because of features like this that are missing from Jira. We currently use the same cumbersome Jira + MS Project combination.

Please please please bring the Roadmap feature to Jira on premises!

I second @Joe Johnson's comment. Due to the nature of our project we must host our tools locally ourselves. This would go a long way towards getting upper management and business side of house into the Atlassian tool suite. Right now we have a cumbersome disconnect between the development team and PMs that use MS project.

We have invested considerable time and efforts into our server solution. It is is not an option for us to move into the cloud.  We are becoming increasingly concerned about the widening gap between the Cloud and Server solution. The cost of even the smallest and features obviously in the domain of Jira and Confluence vs general functionality - and now this great feature the Roadmap - causes our sponsors to ask us to look for other tools.

Please accelerate this feature into Server versions!

Best regards,

Arne

Hi Jira Team,

our Development Team desperatly needs the Roadmap Function for the on-premise Jira version. Cloud is off the table ( we invested time, money and ressources in the "on-premise version") and the pricing for roadmap apps is too expensive. Not to talk about the double effort for managing data with external tools like Aha!. Also, from our point of view it should be a build in feature from the start. Jira is a fantastic tool for scrum teams. With the roadmap feature for the on-premise version it could truly be epic . 

Everybody who needs this feature for the on-premise version: plz vote!

Thx!

Very interested in this feature as well for on prem Jira Server installations. 

I agree, this feature will be useful for us too.

This feature would be extremely useful. I currently manage a roadmap independent of Jira and effectively double the time required to manage this ongoing task.

I'm also keen to get a timeframe for when this feature will be available. 

Is there a feature comparison between server and cloud to show what other features I'm missing out on? 

Keep on seeing ads for Roadmaps on the Cloud.

We have the server version installed and would love to use a Jira system plugin instead of spending thousands to use similar features from other plugins.

I have more than 3000 users with Jira but only a handful need access to create roadmaps.

Using Portfolio and your licencing system, we would need to buy 3000 licences for Portfolio as well.

Please bring in Roadmap for the server.

Hi, can we get an update on this from the Jira team? want to see if they are seriously considering providing this feature on the Server version of Jira.

I saw an ad for roadmaps and immediately installed the latest version on server and was extremely disappointed to find out the feature doesn't actually exist on server. I don't really understand why the products are different at all between cloud, server, data center. Seems like it should be one code base and one offering with different pricing models.

It's very confusing to find features that are advertised as very important but don't even exist.

Looking for any indication of where this falls in a release schedule if at all. We can’t run in cloud, compliance and regulation issues and our PMs are questioning our decision to use Jira.

Hi,

We have got 10000 users in our Jira server and there is a huge demand from people to have a roadmap feature. please expedite this request

Please add this feature, it and other cloud-based features come up in searches for "how to do X" and it teases us server users.

This sort of feature would likely be one of the major pieces that would help transition traditional waterfall managers over to Jira users...

Atlassian should provide this feature to Data center versions as well, if they are providing this features to the server/Data center version, then what is the use of buying with large number of user license.