Archive

See my screenshot - in an active org where an updated config snapshot document is required regularly, you can build a long list of snapshots pretty quickly.  Allowing the Gainsight Admin to delete selected snapshots would be pretty handy - is it already on the roadmap anywhere?

New Config Snapshot is an amazing functionality specially Custom Rules tab it provides complete information about rule setup but is bit complicated to understand.  One suggestion that i had was if the show fields, filters and actions were reformatted to have a simpler understanding of the rule. Currently all the show fields and filters are clubbed into one sentence and it would be great to have proper punctuation in them. The other thing that i wanted to point out is the action info and action criteria column in which for a rule the action type and action criteria are shifted into a separate row. 

We've moved to Scorecard 2.0 and no longer need the data in the UsageData object. In order to get rid of that data, we have to use DataLoader and hard delete. That's do-able, but time consuming. I tried using Truncate, but it's not an option for custom objects in managed packages. I'd like a tool to remove all data from UsageData so I don't have to do that manually.

I need the ability to remove the Delete function (Trash can) from the Customers List. We don't want end users to be able delete Customer Records. I could potentially get the same result by changing object permissions, but am not sure of other consequences of that.

I'm adding fields to the Summary section of the G360. I would love to be able to customize the field name for some of our fields. For examples, for Account::Owner I'd love to be able to call it Sales Rep or Account Manager. But I don't think there's a way for me to do this without renaming the field in SFDC. Am I mistaken?

We have a need for CSMs to be able to transfer their workload temporarily to another CSM when they are going to be out for an extended period of time.  Expecting a backup CSM to check the cockpits of 75 additional customers is not feasible. 

Hey guys I have ran into the issue of CTAs scheduled through Survey not being created because of open CTAs with same type and reason. Are we looking into a way to "Include in Identifiers" in these types of CTAs like when created through Rules Engine?

Right now CTA's based off of Surveys built within the Survey tab default to "Call to Action on Survey" as the title. My team can't easily see what the CTA is about without having to click into it. Customizable titles would be extremely helpful.

Some customers have indicated a desire to have a link directly to the SFDC Account page from the CTA in Cockpit. This would eliminate the need to click to the C360 first, then use that link to jump to the the Account. Re-posting idea from a suggestion earlier this year "Link to SFDC Account page from CTA in Cockpit" (OK to merge). Hoping to get input as to whether there are any current ways to accomplish this or plans to add this functionality, as it has come up as an ongoing request.

In CoPilot, the Outreach overview section currently shows  Open Rate, Total Opens, Clicked, Bounced and Spammed.  Unique opens are only visible once we click on the specific outreach. Is it possible to change/hide Total Opens and display Unique Opens?  We don't track Total opens as a measure, so having the distinct opens displayed would be a better piece of data.                       

Hello -  I've built a custom HTML email template and when I paste the code into the co-pilot (email builder) the image source is being stripped or removed.  Has anyone else run into this issue?

Use case: you have a custom URL field on a Salesforce object like an NPS survey link. Instead of pasting the entire hyperlink into the body of a Copilot email, you could set the token [i]as the hyperlink for a CTA button.

With the patch release on March 23rd, custom rules that hit the maximum record limit will fail. The limit is capped at 200k records per rule run. Currently, the rule succeeds even if there are more records in the source, but it just picks up the first 200k records.  The Gainsight support team will reach out to you within the next couple of days if you have any rules that exceeded the limits in the last 30 days. Gainsight will be increasing the limit to 500k in a staggered manner in the weeks following March 23rd. In the meantime, recommended steps for the rules admin: Identify if your rules might fail in the near future - glance through the execution history to see the no. of records processed. If it is closer to 200k, and it continues to grow, then there is a good chance it will eventually hit the limit and fail. Create a bionic rule and retire the custom rule. Read more about bionic rules

When I'm setting up a rule, I like to make sure the criteria is set and I'm getting all of the right people before I add an action. Even though, the rule won't do anything until it's flagged as active, I would rather not add the action to have it send an email or update records until I've confirmed the rule is functioning as it needs to. Sometimes, i need to see a few days of execution to confirm the logic. I can't save the rule without adding an action and really, the only action I want to take at this point is to create the list.

As we use Gainsight Connect more and more, I think it would improve the admin experience to have a global schedule as opposed to having the schedules need to be created individually.  Is this something that has been considered or is there a technical reason to have them only available to schedule individually?

I received a random rule failure email today, but I have no idea which customer it is.  Can we add ORG ID to the rule log output so I can query in Subscribers and find out who I should be helping?

Rules fail with these exceptions : Validation rule failures/field filter exceptions - Could we please add the records ids in the Excel attachments in these cases? There appears to be some Filter Validation in place preventing us from loading certain records to the Account.  I'm hoping we can narrow in on the exact filter validation that is causing the issue along with the record id's  that failed because of the validation rule [FIELD_FILTER_VALIDATION_EXCEPTION : Value does not exist or does not match filter criteria.]  Current behavior : Email attachment will only contain the failure messages but not the records ids that caused failures. It will be useful if we can display the record ids as well as this will help in cases where rule pulls more records and fails some of them.

Although I was tempted to post to customer-facing category to harvest the likes and the points, not sure of feasibility so I'll start here. We constantly trip over the use case where (most commonly) people want to grab the most recent record based on date: most recent usage record is very common, or most recent task. Are there plans to use the Max or Min agg features in rules to flag the row or rows that qualify so related sums (or the values on the single row) are avaiable to the user?  I know that it's difficult to both architect and code, but I also know it would get a lot of use. On the roadmap anywhere? Thanks!

Is it possible to update the CTA page layout to allow for editing of an individual, manual scorecard measure (like 'customer relationship')?

I wanted to share something I have built out for the HPE CAM team that is something we could possibly work into the product in the future. CAM teams purpose is mostly to manages risks to renewal on all of their customers. The way they will do this in Gainsight today is by opening Renewal Risk type CTAs within their relationship and use linked objects to link the opportunity that is at risk of not renewing for the full amount. They fill in what portion of the total opp value that is at risk and why. To take it a step further, management wants to define a larger 'risk theme' that multiple customer renewals might be a part of. An example would be the same competitor keeps taking away business because of xyz. The thought is that they can create these risk themes in Gainsight -> relate the multiple risk CTAs to the themes -> and also relate the theme to a success plan which is going to be the management teams mitigation of the risk. (These risks may take a ye

Currently, if you want to edit the details of an Adv. Outreach, including changing it's status from Draft or Active to Paused or Stopped, you have to 1) click edit from the list view and then 2) click edit on the AO name. This is not intuitive. It might be better if the edit option in the list view first opened to the details page, instead of the model. 1)  2)  3)

When selecting a default report to show in a C360 page it will only show until you select another report. After that, the new report is what will show next time you visit. Are there any plans to have the page default back to the selected default report every time?

While troubleshooting an issue someone  was having with outreaches stuck in queue, I noticed that the outreach queue # only seems to represent the outreaches loaded on the page. For example, if the page shows there are 10 outreaches in queue, it is only showing the 10 in queue that it finds from the outreaches you can see on the page. Now say you search for a keyword, there may be 15 on the page that are still in queue and that will be reflected in the outreach queue in the top left that you can hover over. As I understand it, this is expected behavior but I think the main page with no search filters applied should show the true number of outreaches in queue and not just the ones that load up on the page.

What we are trying to do is move all the custom reasons made at the global level for a specific relationship to the relationship level on the backend and allow them to use the global types, they were implemented prior to the federated administration. Making it a seamless transition for all the end users. However, when we move the reason on the backend they do not show up when creating a manual CTA.  Current Functionality and expected behavior. When creating a CTA Reason at the Relationship level it only is shown if you have a Relationship Level CTA Type and that is the Type selected when making the CTA for a relationship. I understand the thought process behind this. However, this forces a client to remake all the CTA Types, to include Risk, at the relationship level. This customer uses all of their default CTA types. To recreate this will be too big of an effort. Working on it with the intended design forces a lot of duplication