Structure for JIRA vs. Native JIRA: When to Use WhichManaging work in JIRA can mean very different things depending on whether you rely on native JIRA features (projects, boards, filters, and dashboards) or on the Structure app (by ALM Works) that adds hierarchical issue organization and advanced automation. Choosing the right approach affects visibility, reporting, scaling, and team workflows. This article explains the core differences, benefits and trade-offs of each, and offers practical guidance on when to use native JIRA vs. Structure — and when to combine them.
Quick summary
- Native JIRA is best for straightforward Agile processes, lightweight configurations, and when you want to stick with Atlassian’s built-in capabilities.
- Structure for JIRA is ideal when you need hierarchical views, cross-project rollups, advanced automation, and flexible custom structures that reflect real-world work beyond flat issue lists.
- Use Structure when your organization needs multi-level planning, portfolio-style rollups, or consolidated views across many projects; stay with native JIRA for simple team boards, backlog management, and minimal overhead.
What “Native JIRA” means
Native JIRA covers the out-of-the-box features Atlassian provides: projects, issue types, boards (Scrum/Kanban), backlogs, filters (JQL), dashboards (gadgets), roadmaps (if using Jira Software), advanced search, permissions, and basic bulk operations. These tools let teams track issues, run sprints, and visualize work via boards and reports.
Strengths of native JIRA:
- Simplicity and familiarity for most teams.
- Tight integration across Atlassian suite (Confluence, Bitbucket, etc.).
- Lower cost (no third-party app license).
- Good for single-team or project-scoped workflows.
- Robust permission and notification controls.
Limitations of native JIRA:
- Flat issue lists by default — no native multi-level hierarchies across issue types (beyond parent/sub-task).
- Less flexible cross-project rollups and aggregations.
- Reporting across many projects can be cumbersome.
- Native automation and calculated fields are improving but can be limited compared to third-party apps.
What Structure for JIRA adds
Structure is an app that creates flexible, user-defined hierarchical views (structures) of issues. Each structure can include issues from multiple projects and present them in nested trees — for example: Initiative > Epic > Story > Sub-task, or any other custom grouping. Structures can be static (manually built) or dynamic (built with generators that pull issues based on JQL, filters, links, or issue attributes). Additional features include roll-up of numeric fields, progress calculations, automation (rules and scheduled updates), visual grouping, and synchronized team views.
Key capabilities:
- Hierarchical organization across projects and issue types.
- Generators for dynamic structure building (JQL, issue links, parent/child, sprint membership, etc.).
- Formula columns and roll-ups for aggregated numeric data (estimates, story points, time spent).
- Automation rules and scheduled synchronization.
- Customizable views and permissions per structure.
- Integration with Structure.Gantt (a Gantt chart add-on) and other reporting tools.
Direct feature comparison
Capability | Native JIRA | Structure for JIRA |
---|---|---|
Hierarchical issue trees across projects | No (only sub-tasks & next-gen hierarchy in Advanced Roadmaps) | Yes |
Cross-project consolidated views | Limited (filters/dashboards) | Yes, dynamic and flexible |
Roll-up of numeric fields (sum, remaining) | Limited | Yes |
Automation for building/updating views | Basic (Automation rules) | Advanced generators & sync rules |
Scheduled synchronization of views | No | Yes |
Ad-hoc custom grouping (non-board) | Via filters/dashboards | Yes, with nesting and visual grouping |
Learning curve & admin overhead | Low | Moderate |
Cost | Included with Jira | Paid app |
Integration with Gantt-style planning | Limited | Structure.Gantt integration |
When to use native JIRA
Choose native JIRA when:
- You have a single team or a few small teams working primarily within one project.
- Work can be modeled with the default issue hierarchy (issue → sub-task), or you’re using Atlassian Advanced Roadmaps for simple hierarchies.
- You want minimal administrative overhead and no extra app licensing.
- Your reporting needs are basic and can be satisfied by dashboards, JQL, and built-in reports.
- You prefer strict alignment with Atlassian-supported features and upgrades.
Concrete examples:
- A single Scrum team running 2-week sprints, tracking stories and sub-tasks within one project.
- A small organization where each project represents an independent product and cross-project aggregation is rare.
- Teams primarily using backlogs, boards, and release versions without need for multi-level planning.
When to use Structure for JIRA
Choose Structure when:
- You need multi-level hierarchies that map to your organizational or delivery model (programs, initiatives, epics, stories, tasks) across multiple projects.
- Stakeholders require consolidated roll-ups of estimates, story points, or time across teams and projects.
- You want dynamic, rule-driven groupings (e.g., all issues linked to a given epic, or grouped by component across projects).
- Planning and reporting require scheduled refreshes, synchronized views, or custom calculated columns.
- You’ll use Gantt charts for timeline planning (Structure.Gantt) or need matrixed views of work.
Concrete examples:
- A portfolio manager who needs to see initiatives spanning many projects with rolled-up budgets and progress.
- A program with multiple scrum teams where epics live in one project and stories in multiple teams’ projects.
- A PMO consolidating status across dozens of projects for executive reporting.
Hybrid approaches — best of both worlds
You don’t have to pick only one. Common patterns:
- Use native JIRA for day-to-day team work and boards; use Structure for cross-team planning, portfolio views, and executive roll-ups.
- Keep issue creation, sprinting, and workflow transitions in JIRA; build Structures that aggregate those issues for reporting, roadmapping, or release planning.
- Use Structure generators to reflect live sprint membership or board contents so team boards remain the source of truth while Structure provides the hierarchical lens.
Example workflow:
- Teams create and manage issues on their native JIRA boards and sprints.
- A Structure pulls those issues via JQL or sprint generators, assembles them under program-level parents, and calculates roll-ups for stakeholders.
- PMOs use Structure.Gantt for timeline planning and export reports to Confluence for reviews.
Implementation considerations
- Performance and scale: Large structures with many issues can affect performance. Design generators and filters carefully, use pagination, and test at scale.
- Permissions: Structure views respect JIRA permissions, but consider who needs edit vs. view access to structures.
- Governance: Define who can create and modify structures and rules to prevent divergence and maintenance burden.
- Licensing: Factor in app cost (per user or instance) and maintenance.
- Training: Provide training for admins and power-users on generators, formulas, and automation to get full value.
Migration and setup tips
- Start small: Build a pilot structure for one program to validate needs and performance.
- Mirror production workflows: Keep teams’ boards and workflows unchanged while experimenting with structure generators.
- Use formula columns for key KPIs: e.g., percent done = (rac{ ext{Done Story Points}}{ ext{Total Story Points}}).
- Regularly prune unused structures and monitor sync schedules to reduce clutter and overhead.
- Document standard generators and naming conventions so other admins can reuse patterns.
Common pitfalls
- Overcomplicating structures: Resist nesting for its own sake; align hierarchy with meaningful delivery boundaries.
- Too many custom generators and formulas without governance — becomes hard to maintain.
- Ignoring performance implications of very large dynamic structures.
- Relying solely on Structure for workflow-critical automation — keep JIRA workflows and automation rules for transitions and integrations.
Decision checklist
- Do you need true multi-level hierarchies across projects? → Use Structure.
- Do you only need simple team boards and backlog management? → Native JIRA is enough.
- Do you need roll-ups and portfolio-level reporting? → Structure will save time and manual effort.
- Are you trying to avoid extra licensing and admin overhead? → Stick with native JIRA.
Conclusion
Native JIRA is efficient and sufficient for many team-level use cases: sprint management, boards, and basic reporting. Structure for JIRA becomes essential when work spans multiple projects, requires hierarchical organization, needs roll-ups and calculated metrics, or when program/portfolio-level visibility is a must. For most organizations, the practical path is hybrid: let teams operate in native JIRA for execution and use Structure for cross-project planning, reporting, and hierarchy-based views.