Rename Epic to Feature

[Apryl Harris]

Hi Community,
I have read the documentation on how to change Epic to another name, for instance "Feature", as well as several articles/posts on pros and cons.

Most of the articles seem to be slightly aged. My org wants to make this change but as a Jira Admin I also want to minimize the impacts and truly understand the impact if we decide to revert back. We want to test in our Jira Sandbox instance. But, if we decide against it, is there any known impact to Jira Align?

Has anyone in the Community made this change in 2024 and can you please provide PROS/CONS; and or can Atlassian rep? 

Thank you.

[Bhanu Prakash · Accepted solution]

@Apryl Harris , 

I think we are on the same Boat, We also have something planned in next 2 weeks. 

Here are some of the observations based on the testing done in Sandbox, 

1. Filter Query:
   Since we have 2 Different Sandbox Instances, We tried in both for a board with a Filter Query where Issue Type = Epic, Post Renaming the Epic to Feature: 
   • Sandbox 1 : Filter Query also changed (Issue Type also Renamed to Feature).
   • Sandbox 2 : No changes observed in Filter Query (Manual update was required)
2. Automation Rules: 
   • All Automation Rules where the Issue Type =  Epic is used.
     Validate if the changes are applied
   • All Automation Rules where a Step has JQL query within it
     Manual updates within the JQL Query is needed.

[Apryl Harris]

thank you for your feedback.

[Bhanu Prakash]

@Apryl Harris , 

We did change the Epic to Feature in our Jira cloud production Instance. 
We have Changed Epic Name in the below

1. Administrations ==> Issues==> Issue Types
2. Administrations ==> Issues==> "Issue type hierarchy"
3. Go to your Board/Team ==> Active Sprint/Kanban Team ==> Click on Board Drop down ==> Select Configure Board==> Update "Filter Query" if Type = Epic is used.
4. Go to your Board/Team ==>Click on Project Settings ==> Click on "Automation" ==> Validate Both Global and Project rules ==> Validate each step in each automation rule if "Epic" is used, If used update the value to Feature.

Note:

1. For some Jira instances 4th step automatically changes
   but
   For some Jira instances manual intervention is needed.
2. Manually updating this for all teams is very difficult, so prepare a detailed document on how to do the changes for end user and share it in Announcement, so that the project admins can do it themselves. 

[John Funk · Accepted solution]

Hi Apryl,

I have some clients that have implemented that successfully. But there were not connected to Jira Align so not sure what that impact would be. Also, you don't want to be switching back and forth. You need to decide on a methodology/framework and go with that. The tool should be minimally impactful on how you do your work. 

[Victor Law · Accepted solution]

Hi @Apryl Harris

Renaming a Jira issue type used in the environment is NOT recommended, as it will affect the existing Jira issue filters and the existing structure in the environment for all the projects, especially for an organization with multiple departments/teams that utilize Epic for other purposes.

Thank you.

[Apryl Harris]

Yep. I know, Victor. It is definitely going to take some comms and coordination with the teams. 

I appreciate your feedback.

[Dave Rosenlund _Trundl_ · Accepted solution]

Hi, @Apryl Harris I can't report the pros and cons based on personal experience, but I can tell you that I've spoken to a number of customers over the years who regretted changing Epics to something else when they already had established work and methods in Jira.

The Jira Epic > Story > Substask hierarchy is a holy trinity in Jira and many of its sister products.

[Apryl Harris]

This is my fear, exactly. And why I keep nudging for feedback so I can be as informed as possible. 

[Raphael Teodoro]

Hi @Dave Rosenlund _Trundl_ and @Apryl Harris I used to think like Dave, but I'm giving in. Don't have real experience with a Jira site that has changed the Epic to any other name, but after doing several tests, I see no compelling reasons against changing Epics to another name in Cloud anymore.

If there's an article stating it, then there's no problem in doing it: https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Jira-articles/Beyond-epics-Flexible-naming-has-landed/ba-p/2609733

I couldn't find PROS and CONS, but I could list some OK and not so OK reasons for making the change.

OK reasons:

1. Even Atlassian doesn't advise against that anymore. In the past editing the Epic name would come with an alert and it doesn't anymore.
2. Changing the name in Plans hierarchy applies the change to all the labels across the platform (i.e.: Epic panel, Plans hierarchy filters).
3. The Epic Name field is not a big deal anymore, not mandatory for a while already.
4. Slight inconvenience that it's not possible to change its name, so any references will still mention as Epic Name (exports/imports, moves, etc).
5. Epic Link was replaced by Parent. Slight inconvenience that it's not possible to change its name for import/export, so any references will still mention Epic Link (that's still in use for imports).

Not so OK reasons:

1. This might still be confusing for Automation Rules (that still mention epic in branch rules conditions) and for export/imports that still come with the fields referring to epics.
2. For reporting reasons the change will need to be carried in mind all the time, because it can change how to make API calls, Atlassian Analytics reports and other implications not possible to foresee.
3. Not possible to know how this affects plugins.
4. What I still do not recommend is to add another issue type in the same level of the Epic, because only the epic, even if it changes its name behaves as the epic (the only original parent in Jira)

[Dave Rosenlund _Trundl_]

I confess, @Raphael Teodoro , that my views are largely based on a rear view mirror POV. 

Just because I haven’t met anyone who’s done it, and remains happy that they did, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad idea.

If you proceed, please come back in a few months and provide us with an update.

Thank you for sharing your perspective 👍

-dave

[Robin Surland · Accepted solution]

I have tested this in my sandbox and I've found that:

• The epic panel gets renamed to Feature so that's a smooth transition for users.
• Any filter queries written using "Epic Link" = still work (the Epic Link field stays populated on your new Features)
• Any filter queries using issuetype = Epic will break as those issues are now Features. Bulk updating the new Features to be Epics again isn't really a fix as the links to the child issues will break. This is a quick fix as you just need to update those queries to isusetype = Feature.