Jira apps for agile teams

Collaboration in large-scale organisations often reveals friction in places teams expect to run smoothly. As product and development functions scale, the number of moving parts increases. So does the risk of misalignment.

At Easy Agile, conversations with our customers frequently surface familiar challenges. While each organisation is unique, the core struggles of collaboration are shared. To protect the privacy of the teams we spoke to, we’ve anonymised all quotes. But every insight is real, direct from the people doing the work.

This post is for anyone navigating the complexity of scaled collaboration, whether you're leading a team or working within one. Sometimes the hardest part is seeing the problem clearly. These are the patterns teams are running into, the questions they’re wrestling with, and the cracks that emerge when planning, alignment, and communication break down. Understanding and acknowledging these issues is the first step toward solving them.

Here’s what teams are experiencing and the key questions they’re grappling with as they scale collaboration.

TL;DR – Common collaboration challenges in scale-ups and enterprises:

• Teams struggle with communication and alignment, especially when working across multiple teams or departments
• Managing cross-team dependencies is a significant challenge, often causing delays and requiring frequent coordination
• Capacity planning and skill allocation are difficult, particularly when teams have to balance project work with ongoing operational tasks
• Teams face challenges in breaking down work effectively and maintaining visibility of progress across different teams
• Frequent changes in priorities and scope creep disrupt team planning and execution
• There are difficulties in translating high-level strategy into actionable team priorities and objectives
• Teams struggle with effective retrospectives and continuous improvement processes

What breaks down in cross-team communication?

Communication challenges tend to intensify with scale. As soon as multiple teams are involved, misalignment becomes more likely. A Senior Product Manager from a global HR tech firm described a pattern many teams will recognise:

"One of the main themes I heard in conversations with leadership was the lack of process, transparency, visibility, and dependency tracking. It’s always been manual across teams. We’ve done a really good job, but there’s an opportunity to do better."

Another team member highlighted how this disconnect tends to grow over time:

"At the start of each quarter, our conversations are strategic and cross-functional, involving sales and strategy teams. But as we dive deeper into execution, communication shrinks down to daily engineering huddles, and essential alignment details often get lost."

The problem isn't a lack of communication, but rather a shift in its focus. When delivery takes centre stage, strategic context gets sidelined. When teams move into execution mode, that shift in communication cadence creates blind spots across departments, leading to confusion, duplicated work, or misaligned outputs.

Why is managing dependencies across teams so difficult?

Dependencies create friction when they aren’t visible or clearly owned. Coordination across teams can be derailed by unclear sequencing, late handovers, or competing timelines. An Agile Coach at a financial institution shared:

"We had to run bi-weekly cross-program dependency calls just to stay on top of what was blocking who. We just list dependencies manually, there isn’t any unified visibility. At the ART level, it’s a mix of RTEs, Scrum Masters, and team members trying to link things, but beyond that, it falls apart"

A delivery leader at a global credit bureau reinforced the limitations of existing tools:

"I’ve never successfully been able to really tackle dependency visualization and put a process around that. It's always been manual. When I'm speaking to an executive, that means something... But when I'm speaking to someone on an agile team, it changes as it rolls up...Without proper plugins, even a robust tool like Jira struggles to provide clear dependency visuals. Planning becomes complicated quickly, leaving teams stuck."

Dependency risk increases when shared work isn’t tracked or visualised in a way that’s accessible to all stakeholders. Teams need to see not just their own work, but how it connects with others. Teams need more than awareness - they need shared visibility, clarity on ownership, and consistent ways to plan around dependencies.

How do teams manage capacity when demands keep shifting?

Planning team capacity isn’t just about headcount, but also about competing demands. Teams are often asked to deliver roadmap initiatives while supporting legacy systems, resolving production issues, or addressing technical debt. A product leader from a cybersecurity company shared:

"We’re always trying to achieve a lot with limited resources, and it makes roadmapping really difficult. We’ve made progress in estimating the team's bandwidth more accurately by looking at what they actually delivered last quarter. But we still hit the same issue - too many topics, too little time."

Another team shared how they introduced tighter prioritisation controls using a third-party tool, but even rigid structures have their limits:

"We use XXX as a source of truth for prioritisation. We have around 80 different initiatives prioritised from 1 to 80 of importance... no meeting can be scheduled if the project is not approved in the tool."

This helped formalise approvals and reduce noise, but it also revealed a deeper issue. Even with a strict gating process, the volume of initiatives stayed high, and prioritisation alone couldn’t solve for limited capacity. Clearer structures don’t automatically reduce the demand on teams or ease delivery expectations. That tension persists unless strategic scope is also narrowed.

What makes work breakdown and visibility so hard to maintain?

Breaking down initiatives into independent, testable stories is not always straightforward, especially when scope is uncertain or spans months. A software engineer working across multiple teams explained:

"Breaking work down is hard - some teams still think in layers. They say, ‘This only delivers value when the whole thing’s done.’ On top of that, we often run big planning in a five-hour day or stretch it awkwardly over two days. Third parties and shared services don’t get folded into teams, which makes breakdown and clarity harder."

Large epics often outlive the context in which they were created. As scope evolves, teams may struggle to maintain clear acceptance criteria and shared understanding.

An Agile Coach reinforced how hard it is to keep sight of progress:

"We break each story into smaller pieces as much as possible where it's testable by itself so the testing team can test it... But if it’s a lengthy project, spanning more than two months, it’s easy to lose clarity and effectiveness...Consistently tracking actions across multiple sprints involves endless toggling. It's difficult to quickly understand what's truly improving and what’s still stuck."

As work grows more complex, clarity suffers. Without reliable visibility, work risks stalling or repeating unnecessarily. Teams need tools, systems, and shared language to ensure breakdowns don’t get lost in the shuffle and progress remains meaningful.

Why do changing priorities and scope creep derail plans?

Frequent priority changes and scope creep disrupt planning discipline. They often signal deeper issues: vague goals, shifting leadership expectations, or unclear ownership. One product leader summed it up:

"Priorities used to switch constantly - sometimes halfway through a project, we’d have 30% done and then get pulled into something else. That context-switching really hurts. It demoralises engineers who were already deep into a feature. We had to raise it in a full engineering and product retrospective just to get some stability."

Another shared the toll it takes on delivery teams:

"We often found ourselves mid-quarter pivoting to newly emerging business needs, without fully aligning on what gets dropped. That lack of clarity meant engineers felt whiplash, and team goals kept shifting."

Without stable anchors in the form of clear goals and boundaries, even well-planned work can unravel. Work, then, expands to fill the available sprint, regardless of long-term impact, which brings us to the next challenge.

What stops teams from aligning strategy to daily work?

Teams need clear goals. But clarity breaks down when strategic objectives are too broad or when every team interprets them differently. A senior product manager explained:

"Prioritisation is only as good as your strategy, and ours wasn’t clear. The business goal was just ‘grow revenue,’ but what does that mean? Acquisition? Retention? Everyone wrote their own product objectives. It became a bit of a free-for-all. When goals are vague, it’s hard to prioritise work that ladders up to anything concrete."

Another added:

"We all set objectives tied to broad company goals, but when those goals lack precision, our objectives become misaligned, making prioritisation difficult and often inconsistent."

Without alignment between leadership priorities and team-level execution, valuable work can feel directionless. Objectives become outputs rather than outcomes.

What holds back meaningful retrospectives?

Retrospectives are intended to surface learning. But without consistent follow-through, they risk becoming routine. One Agile Coach shared how to keep them practical:

"We’ve tried tools where you just send a link and everyone rates how hard it was to get something done. But too often, it ends up with one person speaking and everyone else just agreeing. We’re trying to avoid the loudest voice dominating the retro. It’s still a challenge to get real, reflective conversations."

Another shared the risk of retro fatigue:

"To track action items consistently isn't easy... I have to toggle down and look at each one, which can make things cumbersome when ensuring certain behaviours have stuck...Effective retrospectives should surface recurring issues, not just review the recent past. Discussing ongoing challenges helps teams proactively tackle problems and move forward."

The barrier is rarely the ceremony - it’s the follow-up. Teams need lightweight ways to track retro actions, validate changes, and revisit unresolved pain points.

Where to focus

Improving collaboration means addressing the systems and habits that hold teams back:

• Keep strategic conversations active, not just at quarterly planning.
• Visualise and track cross-team dependencies clearly.
• Protect capacity for both roadmap work and operational stability.
• Break work into testable, clearly defined pieces.
• Reinforce the connection between business goals and delivery priorities.
• Make retrospective actions visible and measurable.

The teams we speak to aren’t struggling because they lack process. They’re navigating complexity. The opportunity lies in simplifying where it matters and supporting teams with the clarity to make progress, together.

The first step is recognising these patterns and giving them language. When teams can see and name the problem, they’re already on the path to solving it.

How Easy Agile can help

Whether you're dealing with blurred dependencies, vague objectives or sprint volatility, Easy Agile offers three purpose-built solutions to help teams stay aligned:

• Easy Agile Programs brings structure and visibility to cross-team planning in Jira. Perfect for managing dependencies and long-range planning across multiple teams and projects.
• Easy Agile Roadmaps gives every team a simple, shared timeline view, so they can prioritise and sequence work with strategic context.
• Easy Agile TeamRhythm makes sprint planning, story mapping, and retrospectives more engaging and purposeful, turning agile ceremonies into actionable, team-owned progress.

High-performing agile teams thrive on adaptability, collaboration, and continuous improvement. But for learning to truly happen, teams need psychological safety—a culture where people feel comfortable speaking up, sharing ideas, and acknowledging failures without fear of judgment. One of the most overlooked aspects of team inclusion in agile team dynamics is how people learn. Not everyone processes information the same way, and understanding diverse learning styles can help create environments where all team members feel supported, engaged, and empowered to contribute.

Want to find out your specific learning preferences? Download your free Learning Style Quiz and Guide on how each learner type absorbs knowledge best.

Understanding Learning Styles and Learner Types

Think of a time you learned something quickly and effectively, and try to pinpoint what made it work for you. If it was a learning experience you enjoyed and found useful, the way the information was presented was probably well aligned with the way your brain likes to process new knowledge. For some people, that might look like videos, or a chance to practice and apply, or having time to read and take notes down.

Understanding your own learner type and how you best process information will improve your self-awareness at work, enabling you to learn more effectively and advocate for your learning needs.

But why is it important to understand the learner types of those around you?

• Team awareness → Adapt to others, improve team collaboration and inclusion
• Leaders & trainers → Support diverse learners, create accessible environments
• Inclusion → Recognizing and valuing different ways people process information and communicate
• Psychological safety → People learn best when they feel safe to ask, experiment and fail

Before we get into looking at the four learning styles, let’s take a moment to recognize that learning preferences aren’t one-size-fits-all—many people have a mix of preferences and may not fit neatly into just one category. Diverse learners—those who process, absorb, and express knowledge in different ways—benefit from flexible approaches, and may align with more than one learning style, parts of a few, or none at all. Neurodiversity in the workplace is an important consideration here—neurodivergent individuals often have unique information processing styles and may need additional support to ensure they can engage effectively. The key is to find what works best for you and create an environment where everyone can learn in their own way.

The VARK Learning Model: Four Learner Types

The VARK learning model categorizes learners into four main types:

Psychological Safety & Team Inclusion in Agile

Now that you understand your own learning style—and that others may learn very differently—let’s talk about how this contributes to team effectiveness.

Learning, growth, and innovation are cornerstones of high-performing agile teams, but these things don’t happen in isolation. They can really only happen in environments where people feel safe to ask questions, experiment, and share ideas. It is well known that a key factor of successful and effective agile teams is their positive, healthy culture, and this is where psychological safety and inclusion come in.

Psychological safety and inclusion are essential for agile teams because they:

• enable people to learn and grow
• help teams adapt and change quickly
• reduce fear of failure, leading to innovation
• prevent misalignment and financial loss due to fear of speaking up

Inclusion and psychological safety aren’t just ‘nice to have’ - they make agile work.

➡️ What is inclusion?

Ensuring that everyone, regardless of background, identity, or learning style, has equal opportunity to contribute, feel valued, and thrive in a team or workplace.

How to foster inclusion in the workplace:

• Adapt communication and learning approaches to support different learner types.
• Create accessible ways for everyone to engage e.g. visuals, discussions, written formats, hands-on activities.
• Actively seek out and respect different perspectives in meetings, planning, and decision-making.
• Ensure all voices are heard by structuring discussions to prevent dominant voices from taking over.

➡️ What is psychological safety?

A team environment where individuals feel safe to speak up, take risks, ask questions, and share ideas without fear of judgment, rejection, or punishment.

How to build psychological safety in the workplace:

• Normalize giving and receiving feedback in a constructive, blame-free way.
• Encourage curiosity—frame mistakes as learning opportunities rather than failures.
• Leaders should model vulnerability by admitting when they don’t have all the answers.
• Create a culture where all input is valued by acknowledging contributions, even if they aren’t implemented.

Agility is a learning process

The strongest agile teams learn, adapt, and have a culture of continuous improvement. Psychological safety enables teams to ask questions, challenge ideas, and experiment without fear - key to fast and effective feedback mechanisms.

Why psychological safety matters for all learners…

People process information differently—safe environments let all learners express needs, engage in their way, and contribute fully. Diverse learners, including neurodivergent team members, may not fit one learning type—psychological safety ensures they can ask for what they need without judgment, and feel valued for the way they engage with and process information.

The impact on agility?

• Align: Safety fosters open discussion → better decisions, clear priorities.
• Improve: Teams feel safe to experiment → faster learning, better solutions.
• Inform: Feedback flows freely → smarter investment decisions, stronger adaptability.

What does this look like in practice?

Retrospectives: The Ultimate Learning & Inclusion Space

Retrospectives are where Agile teams pause to reflect, learn, and improve. But for a retro to be effective, it must be psychologically safe and inclusive—because without trust, learning can’t happen.

So, what makes a retrospective psychologically safe and inclusive?

✅ All voices are heard → Everyone, regardless of communication or learning style, has a way to contribute.
✅ Blame-free reflection → The focus is on learning and improving, not pointing fingers.
✅ Actionable follow-through → The team sees real change as a result of their input, building trust.

How to Create Inclusive & Safe Retros

To ensure your retrospectives work for all learning styles, consider:

• Use multiple ways to gather input → Anonymous feedback, written reflections, open discussion, or interactive boards.
• Encourage different communication styles → Some may prefer speaking up in the moment, while others need time to process and write.
• Follow through on feedback → If teams don’t see changes happen, engagement will drop.

A great retro is not just a meeting—it’s a space for learning, collaboration, and trust-building. And the right tools can help.

How Easy Agile TeamRhythm Helps Agile Teams Run Inclusive, Psychologically Safe Retros

While Easy Agile TeamRhythm is a Jira app built for creating, estimating, and sequencing work at a team level on an interactive user story map, it is also a platform for running engaging and effective agile retrospectives. The retrospectives feature of Easy Agile TeamRhythm allows uses to create and track action items from retros by group feedback, identifying themes, and converting them into Jira issues for each planning. You can use templates, mood surveys, and timers to keep your ceremonies focused and effective.

Build collaboration and improve team alignment

Easy Agile TeamRhythm makes team retrospectives boards the hub for learning and improvement, allowing teams to celebrate wins, share learnings, and improve their team alignment and workflow. The ability to set privacy and permissions ensures that team information is only available to those your team trusts.

How Easy Agile TeamRhythm features create psychological safety and inclusion

Final thoughts

Inclusion and psychological safety aren’t just concepts—they’re the foundation of high-performing Agile teams. By recognizing different learning styles, creating space for all voices, and fostering a culture where people feel safe to learn and experiment, teams can truly thrive. What’s one thing you’ll do to make your Agile team more inclusive, supportive, and effective? Small changes can have a big impact.

Start building more inclusive, collaborative teams

Download your free copy of the Learning Style Quiz. Use it to gain lasting insights into how your team learns and works best.

Across hundreds of teams, we saw the same pattern: retrospectives were happening regularly, thoughtfully - and yet, less than half the retrospective action items ever got completed. Teams kept identifying valuable improvements, but those improvements stalled in execution. Instead of driving change, the same issues resurfaced sprint after sprint.

When we spoke with customers, they weren’t unclear on what to improve - they were actually stuck on how to follow through. The lack of visibility, accountability, and prioritization made progress feel out of reach.

That frustration led us to rethink how we approach retrospectives. Not just in the room, but in the days and weeks that follow. Because while most teams know how to reflect, far fewer know how to move forward.

Want to dive straight into action? Grab our free Retrospective Action Template here - a clear, practical guide to help your team stop spinning in circles and start making progress that actually sticks.

Or if you're keen to understand the deeper why behind this challenge, keep reading.

The invisible graveyard of good ideas

Think back to your last few retros. You likely surfaced blockers, celebrated wins, maybe even explored a tough team dynamic. The discussion probably felt honest - valuable, even.

Now ask yourself: What actually changed as a result?

Too often, retrospective action items, even the well-intentioned ones, are lost to the shuffle of a new sprint. The Jira board fills up, the deadline looms, and those carefully considered ideas fade into the background.

It’s not that teams don’t care. It’s that we often lack a system for taking action from team retrospectives in a way that’s trackable and integrated with our actual work.

We’ve seen the pattern: teams revisit the same problems retro after retro. Over time, that repetition chips away at trust. "Didn’t we already talk about this?" becomes the refrain, and eventually, the retro starts to feel like a ritual with no reward.

The follow-through problem

Most retrospectives don’t fail during the session itself; they falter in the days and weeks afterward. According to a poll in PMI's community, nearly two-thirds of respondents implemented fewer than 25% of the ideas from their retros - none reported implementing more than 75%.

"If your team consistently creates action items during Retrospectives but rarely completes them, you’re not alone. Unfinished action items are a major productivity killer and lead to stalled progress. The key to real improvement isn’t in creating long lists—it’s in following through. By treating Retrospective action items with the same importance as other Sprint tasks, your team can finally break the cycle of unfinished improvements and see real, beneficial change, individually and at the team level." - Stefan Wolpers, Age of Product

Follow-throughs often break down because of:

• Lack of clear ownership‍

When an action item belongs to 'everyone', it ends up belonging to no one. Teams that don’t assign a specific owner are less likely to see the item through. Accountability is a critical lever for ensuring follow-through and it’s often overlooked, especially in team-wide retros.

• No deadlines:

Action items without a timebox drift into the background. Teams frequently delay or deprioritize tasks that aren’t linked to specific sprint milestones or review points. Time-bound goals make follow-up tangible and measurable.

• Vague outcomes:

Teams often fall into the trap of writing retrospective items as intentions rather than actions. Broad phrases like “improve communication” or “fix our process” lack specificity. Without a clear 'what' and 'how', nothing moves.

• Too many actions:

When every idea from the retro becomes an action item, focus disappears. Prioritization is vital. Teams need to pick one or two meaningful improvements that are realistic for the sprint ahead. Otherwise, everything feels equally important—and nothing gets done.

• Poor visibility:

Action items are often scattered - living in whiteboards, static docs, or someone's memory. If teams can’t see what they committed to, they won’t act on it. Integrating follow-up tasks into the team’s daily tooling (like Easy Agile TeamRhythm in Jira) makes accountability unavoidable.

All of these factors add up to the same end result: a wide gap between good intentions and real progress. In our own usage data of Easy Agile TeamRhythm, teams were completing only 40–50% of their retrospective action items. After releasing features to surface and track incomplete actions, that completion rate jumped to 65%. Better follow-throughs, not just better conversations, are needed to drive real progress.

Common retrospective anti-patterns and their solutions

nti-patterns are common but counterproductive approaches to recurring problems that initially appear helpful but ultimately lead to negative outcomes. Unlike simple mistakes, anti-patterns are deceptive - they feel like the right thing to do in the moment but create deeper issues over time.

Teams consistently struggle with follow-through due to a combination of anti-patterns that weaken accountability and momentum. Here are the most common retrospective anti-patterns we see and how to address them:

1. The groundhog day pattern

Anti-pattern: The retrospective never changes in format, venue, or length, leading to the same issues being discussed repeatedly without resolution.

Why it happens: Teams fall into comfortable routines that feel "safe" but become stale and ineffective over time.

Solution: Vary your retrospective format regularly. Use different techniques like Start-Stop-Continue, 5 Whys, or Timeline Retrospectives. Change venues when possible - even moving from a conference room to an open space can shift energy and perspective.

2. The UNSMART action trap

Anti-pattern: Teams create action items that are vague, unmeasurable, or unrealistic (e.g., "improve communication" or "be more agile").

Why it happens: In the moment, broad aspirations feel meaningful, but they lack the specificity needed for execution.

Solution: Apply the SMART criteria to every action item: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-boxed. Instead of "improve communication," try "implement daily 15-minute team check-ins for the next two weeks."

3. The blame game

Anti-pattern: Retrospectives become cycles of finger-pointing and complaints without constructive problem-solving.

Why it happens: Teams lack psychological safety or facilitation skills to move from problems to solutions.

Solution: Establish "Vegas rules" (what's said in the room stays in the room) and focus on systems rather than individuals. Use techniques like "How might we..." questions to shift from blame to solution-oriented thinking.

4. The accountability vacuum

Anti-pattern: Action items are assigned to "everyone" or "the team," meaning no one feels personally responsible.

Why it happens: Teams want to avoid singling people out or assume collective ownership will naturally emerge.

Solution: Assign every action item to a specific person, even if execution involves the whole team. That person becomes the "champion" responsible for driving progress and reporting back.

5. The external focus trap

Anti-pattern: Teams spend most of their retrospective time discussing issues completely outside their control (other departments, management decisions, external dependencies).

Why it happens: External frustrations are often more emotionally charged and easier to discuss than internal team dynamics.

Solution: Use the "Circle of Influence" technique. Acknowledge external constraints briefly, then redirect focus to what the team can directly control and improve.

6. The documentation desert

Anti-pattern: No one takes notes or tracks what was discussed, leading to forgotten insights and repeated conversations.

Why it happens: Teams underestimate the value of retrospective outcomes or assume everyone will remember key points.

Solution: Designate a rotating note-taker and create a simple tracking system for action items. Include photos of boards or flip charts to capture visual elements.

7. The participation paradox

Anti-pattern: Some team members dominate discussions while others remain silent or disengaged.

Why it happens: Personality differences, power dynamics, or lack of structured facilitation create unequal speaking opportunities.

Solution: Use structured techniques like silent brainstorming, dot voting, or time-boxed speaking turns. Actively invite quieter members to share and ensure psychological safety for all voices.

A 5-step system for retros that lead to progress

Here’s the rhythm we’ve seen work across resilient, high-performing teams:

1. Prepare with purpose
   • Revisit action items from the previous retro - not just to tick them off, but to understand what’s changed since they were raised.
   • What moved forward? What didn’t? Why?
   • Clear out what’s stale. Highlight what’s still relevant. Identify patterns that deserve deeper discussion.
2. Focus the dialogue
   • Get beyond symptoms. Dig into root causes.
   • Use tools like “5 Whys” to sharpen your thinking.
   • Anchor the discussion on: What’s urgent and worth solving now?
3. Prioritize with intention
   • Don’t try to fix everything. Use an Impact/Effort Matrix to filter.
   • Choose 1–2 action items to commit to.
   • Assign owners. Define success. Agree on timelines.
4. Track where you work
   • Use a retrospective action tracker that lives inside your workflow.
   • In Easy Agile TeamRhythm, you can surface incomplete items, view their history, sort by relevance, and understand their context - all without switching tools.
5. Close the loop - every time
   • Review previous action items at the start of each retro.
   • Celebrate what’s done, even if it's small.
   • Reassess what to keep, modify, or drop.
6. Measure progress
   Start tracking your continuous improvement progress with simple, actionable metrics:Measuring these over time tells you whether you're improving how you improve.
   
   • ‍Action Item Completion Rate – % of action items completed before the next retro (target: 80–100%)‍
   • Recurring Issues Rate – How often the same topic resurfaces across retros‍
   • Average Age of Open Action Items – How long improvement tasks stay unresolved
   • ‍Retro Participation Rate – % of team actively contributing to retro inputs or votes

Stop repeating the same conversations

A team retrospective that works isn’t one that just uncovers issues - it’s one that resolves them. Building a habit of follow-through transforms retros from a passive meeting into a lever for real change.

If your retros feel like déjà vu, the problem might not be how you talk. It might be what happens after.

🎁 Get the full framework

We’ve distilled all these lessons and more into a practical, field-tested Retrospective Action Template. Inside, you’ll find:

• A step-by-step worksheet
• Guidance for assigning and tracking scrum action items
• Examples of achievable retrospective action items
• Built-in strategies for how to make a retrospective meaningful

👉 Download the free template here.

You’re already talking about what matters. Let’s make sure you act on it.

‍