Why turning agreed plans into Jira tickets still feels heavy

Recently, I had a chance to reflect on how we organize development tasks and turn them into Jira tickets.
In this post, I want to write down a small discomfort I felt, and some thoughts about possible process improvements.

These are still work-in-progress thoughts.
I am sharing them in case they are useful for someone who struggles with similar issues.

First, we summarized development tasks in a Confluence table and aligned on the content as a team.
After that, we used Miro to visualize the schedule and reviewed it together.

The reason we used Miro was simple: it is quick to sketch ideas.
When discussing timelines, adjusting placement, and aligning granularity, it works very well.

Up to this point, the process itself still felt meaningful.
we were able to reach a shared understanding of background and priorities as a team.

However, the next step—creating formal Jira tickets—felt unexpectedly heavy.

Even though we had already aligned in Confluence and Miro,
we still needed to rewrite the agreed content into Jira tickets.
This was not about deciding what to do again,
but about rewriting what we had already agreed on in Jira’s format.

What felt heavy was not decision-making itself.
It was the work of rewriting agreed content as Jira tickets,
which turned out to be more costly than I had expected.

Looking back, the issue was not that we used Confluence or Miro.
The real issue was that
there was no smooth way to move agreed content directly into Jira.

In practice, both the Confluence table and the Miro board ended up being treated as reference material.
When creating Jira tickets, the final workload was concentrated on one person.

As a result, the flow became:

aligned → aligned again → individual work at the end

and that last step felt the heaviest.

This led me to think that
there might be room to improve the process of turning agreed plans into official development tickets.

For example:

• Treating the Confluence table as the primary source for development task candidates
• Introducing a status such as “Ready” and creating Jira tickets only from those rows
• Thinking of Jira tickets not as something to create from scratch, but as something to rewrite and promote from agreed content

If the Confluence table is structured in a machine-readable way,
it also becomes realistic to semi-automate ticket creation using tools like Claude Code,
for example by generating Jira tickets only from rows marked as “Ready”.

In that case, creating Jira tickets would no longer be a place for thinking,
but a place for confirmation and generation.

Addendum: Considering Jira as the Single Source of Truth

In this post, I mainly described a flow where Confluence is used as the starting point and Jira comes later.
At the same time, I think it is also worth considering a different approach:
treating Jira as the Single Source of Truth (SoT).

If Jira is the SoT, there is no duplicate task management.
Everything—from creation to execution and completion—stays in one place.
It also works well with automation, APIs, and generative AI tools like Claude Code.

On the other hand, Jira is strong as a place for execution,
but it can feel heavy when handling ideas that are still unclear or not yet agreed on.

To make Jira work as the SoT, some conditions seem necessary:

• Allowing statuses like Draft or Idea for unconfirmed tasks
• Treating boards and roadmaps as visualization views, not decision-making spaces
• Doing reviews and discussions in other places while reading Jira data as reference

Whether Confluence or Jira should be the SoT does not have a single correct answer.
It depends on where the biggest friction exists in the current process.

The discomfort I described here came from a Confluence-first process,
but it also gave me an opportunity to rethink how things might work if Jira were the SoT.

I still do not have a clear final answer.
However, this experience helped me clearly articulate one thing:

When alignment is already done,
the heaviness of ticket creation is not a personal issue, but a process design issue.

Next, I would like to test these ideas gradually within the team
and see what actually makes the process easier.