Why Jira Feels Too Heavy for Most Teams

Jira is powerful.

It’s also overwhelming.

For many teams, Jira doesn’t feel like a productivity tool
it feels like a second job.

If you’ve ever heard phrases like:

• “We’ll update Jira later”

• “It’s in Slack, not Jira”

• “The board is outdated anyway”

You’re not alone.

So why does Jira feel so heavy for most teams?

Jira Was Built for a Different Kind of Team

Jira wasn’t designed for modern, fast-moving teams.

It was built for:

• Large engineering organizations

• Strict processes

• Long planning cycles

• Dedicated project managers

In those environments, Jira makes sense.

But most teams today look very different:

• Cross-functional

• Conversation-driven

• Async

• Constantly changing priorities

Jira assumes work is planned first then executed.

Reality works the opposite way.

The Real Cost of Jira Isn’t the Tool It’s the Overhead

Jira’s biggest problem isn’t complexity.
It’s maintenance cost.

Every Jira workflow requires:

• Manual ticket creation

• Status updates

• Field management

• Board hygiene

Someone has to do this work.

And that “someone” is usually:

• The PM

• Or the most responsible person on the team

This creates a hidden tax:

Work about work.

Jira Lives Outside Where Work Actually Happens

Here’s the core issue.

Most real work happens in:

• Slack

• Meetings

• Calls

• Threads

Jira lives somewhere else.

So PMs end up translating:

• Conversations → tickets

• Decisions → fields

• Agreements → statuses

Jira doesn’t reduce coordination work.
It centralizes it onto one person.

Heavy Tools Break Down Under Fast Iteration

When priorities change daily, Jira struggles.

Teams start to see:

• Outdated boards

• Zombie tickets

• Unused workflows

• Broken trust in the system

At that point, Jira becomes ceremonial.

It exists for reporting not execution.

The Psychological Cost No One Talks About

Jira changes how teams feel about work.

• Small tasks feel heavier

• Quick decisions feel bureaucratic

• Conversations feel unfinished until “documented”

People delay action because:

“It’s not in Jira yet.”

That’s a signal something is wrong.

Why Teams Keep Jira Anyway

Despite all this, many teams keep Jira.

Why?

• Switching costs feel high

• Stakeholders demand visibility

• “It’s what real teams use”

But tool maturity ≠ team maturity.

A heavy tool doesn’t make a team more professional.
It often just slows them down.

Lightweight Teams Need Lightweight Systems

Not every team needs:

• Advanced workflows

• Custom fields

• Complex boards

Most teams need:

• Clear ownership

• Visible decisions

• Fast execution

• Less cleanup

They don’t need another place to manage work.
They need fewer places.

The Alternative Isn’t “Another Jira”

The solution isn’t replacing Jira with a smaller Jira.

The solution is starting earlier.

👉 At the conversation level.

If work begins in conversation, then:

• Tasks should be created there

• Decisions should be captured there

• Execution should stay there

This removes the translation layer entirely.

Where MAKi Fits In

MAKi wasn’t built to compete with Jira feature-for-feature.

It was built to remove the need for Jira for many teams.

MAKi:

• Turns conversations into structured to-do tickets

• Captures decisions automatically

• Keeps execution visible inside the messenger

• Reduces PM overhead dramatically

No extra boards.
No workflow maintenance.
No ticket babysitting.

The Bottom Line

Jira isn’t bad software.

It’s just heavy.

And most teams today don’t need more weight
they need less friction.

If your team spends more time managing Jira
than moving work forward,

the problem isn’t your team.

It’s the tool.