I just want to say that Monday.com is a great project management platform. I like how it is highly customizable and very easy to use. But the clincher for me not going with Monday was that their subtasking is very limiting. For me, within a given project, you will have always have multi-level subtasking and the fact that you can only do one-level of sub-tasking is very limiting on how you organize a project. I know the claim that subtasks are usually hidden and get lost, but if you tag people and have it on your dashboard why should it get lost?
Hi! My name is Mabel, I am on the product team of a software company, a partner of Monday. Great to meet you!
We’re conducting interviews to increase our understanding of the workarounds, pain points and your needs around sub-subitems. As active users of Monday, your experience is invaluable to us, and your feedback can help us create a solution for you, which is our ultimate goal!
Would you be up for a 20-minute chat over Zoom? As a token of appreciation for your time and insight, we’re offering an incentive. If you’re interested to take part, please suggest a day and time that suits you and I’ll do my best to be available.
You can reach me out here or at mhernandez@adaptavist.com. Thank you!
I completely agree with your point. There are some workarounds that can be used e.g. using different views with column filters to break-up the plan into editable chunks, and using summarised board views to create the necessary levels under Groups to create a readable POAP, but it is still a pain and a big gap vs all other product managment tools on the market. I personally think sub/nested Groups would be the best way forward and it is bewildering why this hasn’t been addressed.
I agree with this post 100%
Monday’s lack of support for multi-level subtasks ended up being THE reason that I did not select Monday.com for use. (Missing feature) I’d experienced this same challenge using JIRA over many years in tech, and had zero interest in experiencing the PTSD around trying to compensate for this architecture weakness or limitaiton again with a supposedly “modern” product.