Shortcut Erfahrungen

We're a scrum team developing software in the news industry. We switched from PivotalTracker to Clubhouse, and the ease of setup and how quickly we were able to learn the product was amazing. It took me weeks to get a grasp of PivotalTracker, but within a morning we were up and running on Clubhouse and loving it. The software looks clean, appealing, and intuitive, and it is so easy to learn and use that you will wonder why you used anything else ever. And the price point is easy to swallow, too. We love it!

Clubhouse is still missing robust sprint related tools. There are great workarounds in place, and they will be releasing those soon, so no hesitation on recommending it. But once they roll those features out it will be even better.

Many of the features of this software are useful to our company. Our team has come to heavily rely on the roadmap view and reporting tools. These features have kept our company on track and increased our velocity in immeasurable ways.

A few of the features our team feels are missing from Shortcut are custom fields and release management. If our team was able to have a reliable release management system, it would be very impactful to our team and customers.

The software is intuitive and easy to use if you've used other product management software. Has lots of additional features.

The reason we stopped using it was we didn't actually need all the features that it had. In the end we felt like we had too many tools and downsized into Notion.

Its interface is super fast compared to tools like Jira. I find the platform extremely easy to use and configure.

The interface has changed recently and at times that can be jarring. But I have no major complaints.

The software is so easy to use and was really easy to set up. Almost every integration you could need is also available to make workflow quicker and more automated.

Switching from Projects to Teams has been quite difficult and required that we rework our custom board and views used for our normal agile ceremonies.

The ability to use Shortcut the first day, integrate with our process easily and nicely, search items successfully every time, link items, all without a hiccup!

I wish more people in our organization could use it!!!! Just doesn’t fit their processes at the moment… I am working on it though!

This software is a curated experience that intentionally limits setup and flows compared with other products like JIRA which are less "bounded." I think this is better for most teams which do not care to install extra plugins and fight with non-intuitive workflow items.

There are some quirks in group selection and application, filtering, and sorting that do not always let me cross-cut the data the ways I want.

Whether you’re part of a small software team or you’re integrated into a collection of agile teams at an enterprise software shop - Shortcut makes it easy and intuitive to manage the many integrated software projects of todays micro services oriented development style. We’ve found that Shortcut grew with us from 2 devs to 10 and we expect it to grow with us as we grow to 50.

Story management sometimes feels like a full time job, but at least Shortcut makes it a joy. For our open source projects we have a hard time integrating with issues on GitHub where public issues are generated, but for our private projects, the GitHub integration is lightweight and effective.

Seems silly, but for me, it's the ability to create tasks under a ticket, and be able to convert those into tickets on their own. Jira did not have this, and still doesn't as far as I know, but wouldn't matter - Shortcut is simple to use, and ready to go out of the box.

Doesn't have the brand recognition, so hard to convince others that its the correct solution to use.

Shortcut is amazing for non-profits who need a flexible and no- to low-cost task/project management platform.

Unless you work in Agile methodology day in and day out, it can be difficult to understand how to effectively organize tasks/stories into epics and projects.

Shortcut is "just right" for our needs, and thinking back about previous companies, would have been perfect in their needs, too. It is much more than a to-do tracker but doesn't overwhelm you with flexibility. My favorite part of this software is that it's story-centric. Epics are available, but they can play a supporting role if needed. Tasks are left to the developer to fill out themselves end up being merely a checklist. This paradigm shifts the focus to deliverables and prevents gamification by closing out menial tasks just to pump up ticket closures.

As a bonus, this standardizes the language of Epics/Stories/Tasks. There is no more endless debate on what should be what. The one thing I've always seen with Jira, especially in young teams, is that the flexibility of the product creates unproductive debate and confusion about terminology.

This product focuses on product delivery. For more general applications, like issue tracking or process management, it may not be the best for that.

Flexibility and ease of the software - Clubhouse is extremely easy to learn and provides the ability to mold the software and functionality to your team's workflows.
Additionally, the Clubhouse team is continuously adding new integration and features that are best practice for most modern and agile product & tech teams.

Not necessarily a specific con to Clubhouse but in general for all project management tools. Given the need for detailed requirements, it is necessary to write a lot of content on tickets. As such, the mobile experience is not on part with the browser desktop experience. That being said, I tend to create shell tickets on the mobile app or mobile view, then complete the tickets on a desktop when I have full functionality and familiarity.

- Ease of use
- The UI is easy to navigate
- Perfect for our team structure

Have only ever run into a few minor issues:

1. Setting up the backlog of our stories to prioritize
- Solution: If you have a ticket that you would like to appear in the backlog. Set the owner as yourself(Product Manager) and set the state to Unscheduled. And we also set up the filters for the backlog to display tickets that have a PM as the owner and are unscheduled.

2. Estimate section of ticket creation - would attribute one point to one day of work, but not having the ability to set half a day of work because there is no 0.5 option

3. When copying plain text from a word file and pasting it into a ticket, I would like it to also appear as plain text

- I have like many in product at one point or another used Jira
- It's way smoother and way less. clunky then jira. Pages are more responsive and load quicker with less jumping
- Creating tickets is easy
- The UI is visually appealing

- Lacking integration compared to Jira
- Sometimes the auto-save fails and you lose work
- sometimes tickets you create are lost in a void if not triaged correctly

I like the visuals, the ease-of-use, everything is pretty intuitive even the first time you're using it. It's been a couple of years since my team started using it, and it works very well for us.

The name change recently forced us to adapt a lot of our automation regarding the app, but the reason for it was understandable.

Can branch out the epic easily from origin when too much topic / stories relate to one single task, easy to manage.

Report : difficult to view milestone and every team member epic / stories completion, declared start and end date vs actual end date.Charging fee : I have team member join and leave, empty seat is a waste of money.

I have found that the ability for me to create story templates for my team has improved the quality of the requirements for features, increased the number of test cases we identify before implementation, and has decreased the amount of time it takes my engineers to push fixes for bugs.

I would say one thing I feel is missing is the ability to see status of team members across multiple workflows. I can click through each one and jot down notes, but when there’s a critical bug it would be nice to just see a birds eye view of who’s working on what so I know who to give it to.

It's relatively easy to use, and the Slack integration makes tickets relatively easy to create.

It's not super opinionated on the workflow as opposed to Asana. I can understand why, though, given it's meant to model enterprise workflows.

Does what we need it to do - create bug tickets

Not easy to filter, find or sort. Maybe I just don't know how to use the features, and I know I use them in a completely different fashion than Engineering does (we create tickets, they execute them), but each time someone says "just filter and find", I have no idea and can't figure it out. I also hear from their team about how hard it is to do what they need to do with the tickets once we create them. Not user friendly for sorting or tagging for projects.

It's easy to use and organize, and there are a lot of customizable features that the previous software I used did not have.

I wish you could add blockers that aren't other stories, i.e. if I am blocked on something because I need to go confirm something with a Stakeholder, that's not easily indicated within Shortcut. We end up using a Workflow State for "Blocked" stories instead of using the Relationships feature.

We love the team collaboration and flexible storyboard features. It works well across disciplines such as scrum and kanban.

It's difficult to rank and order the importance of UserStories relative to other systems I've used.

It's amazing to just have everything work logically out of the box. The API access allowed me to integrate Shortcut with my tooling to make tagging commits and code far simpler than ever before.

There's definitely a lot of room for improvement with auxiliary features like the built-in WYSIWYG document editor, and sometimes the rigidity of the project layout does get somewhat cumbersome if you ever need to deviate slightly from the main feature set.

Manage projects in hierarchy using EPICS, STORIES and TASKS, and be able to label them based on your firm's development process (example: sprint_5, design_discussion, etc.) and define different phases anyway you like, such as Backlog, Development, Review, Deployment and Completion. Then you have different views of the projects at any time, like Report, Status.

I wished there could be a way to attach an identifier to each of the tasks, in case that one would use it when checking in the code or communicating with others

This product is simple and easy to use! The features Shortcut offers are intuitive. It is very easy to filter tasks or bugs and all the data looks very organized. Each task/bug story is very easy to drag and drop to a new workflow state, and you can see every workflow state and their stories at once which makes it very easy to assess the status of a project and see what features and bugs still need to be completed. It is also easy to filter stories by project or user, tag other users in a story, and link stories together in the order they need to be completed.

We just us this software internally. It would be cool if we could use this externally with our clients as well, and be able to hide certain workflow states or story comments from them, and/or hide client comments from the devs and let the project manager interface between the devs and clients.

- I can create a different view for each of my standing weekly meetings, so I can quickly filter to just the items I need to view at the time.
- Labels are flexible and powerful enough to help organize and track varying needs.
- The structure meets differing needs across roles, R&D, Education, Development, QA, Product

- The software is so flexible that defining the "right" way to use it is very difficult starting off.
- I suppose this is a risk with any software in this space, but there is a danger of losing items if they are excluded from all your standard views. This means that you have to build a view just to look for those lost items. We call them our "Oops" queues.