Private Bank merges multiple Jira Instances across different Server types

e-Core • August 11, 2021

A large private bank with over $438 billion in assets, wanted to consolidate four different Jira instances to improve governance, security and audit processes. We helped centralized its Jira administration in an environment with more than 4,300 users, 354,000 issues and 1,500 projects.


Client:  One of the largest private banks in Latin America who wanted to improve governance, security, and processes.


Products:  Jira, Cloud


Challenges: Separate Jira instances were being hosted in many different locations and three of the partners were running server-based Jira instances and the other was running off the Cloud. The goal was to create a consolidated instance to improve efficiency.


What was done: 

  • Environmental Preparation and Structural Migration
  • Consolidate two main instances in production
  • Migrate Projects from Partner B’s instance in staging and production
  • Migrate Projects from Partner C’s instance in staging and production



Benefits:

  • All the integrations with third-party systems continued working on the new consolidated instance
  • Use the project template as a model for other areas to improve efficiency
  • Centralized Jira administration


LET'S CONNECT

Ready to unlock your team's potential?


e-Core

We combine global expertise with emerging technologies to help companies like yours create innovative digital products, modernize technology platforms, and improve efficiency in digital operations.


You may also be interested in:

Por Adriele Radmann 3 de agosto de 2026
Discover why customer support is your strongest shield against churn. Learn how to connect support, product dev, and AI to protect recurring revenue.
23 de julho de 2026
See how Banco Inter migrated to Jira Cloud, cut $200K in annual costs, and boosted team efficiency with e-Core as its implementation partner.
Por Flávia Batista 10 de julho de 2026
There is a belief that runs deep inside IT operations teams: a noisy environment is a healthy one. If alerts are firing constantly, if tickets are piling up, if the on-call rotation is getting hit at 2am, that means monitoring is working. The tools are catching things. I understand where this comes from. In the early days of observability, silence was genuinely suspicious. A quiet dashboard often meant a gap in coverage, a misconfigured rule, something important slipping through undetected. So teams learned to treat volume as proof, and that instinct stayed long after the environment around it changed. But noise is not proof that monitoring is working. In most cases, it is proof that something upstream was never fixed. Automation at the wrong end When alert volume becomes unsustainable, the response is almost always the same. Leadership looks at the backlog (a thousand tickets a day, engineers buried, SLAs slipping) and reaches for automation at the remediation end of the pipeline: AI agents plugged into monitoring tools, scripts that fire when incident X arrives, routing logic that moves tickets faster. These are reasonable responses to an unreasonable situation, but they treat cost rather than cause. Most of those alerts should never have been generated. Processing them faster does not change why they exist.