Similar to my idea at https://community.gainsight.com/gainsight/topics/scorecards-help-text-cheat-sheet
But basically, instead of having a cheat sheet, you could add a second comments box. The first one gets updated by the admin, through the rules, and says whatever they want it to say (tokenize fields, standard text, etc). The second one allows the user to add comments that wouldn't get overwritten each time the rule runs.
Thoughts??
Adding a second comments section for scorecards
+3
Hi,
We are looking at following a similar design pattern as timeline for the scorecard comments as well.
The measure level comments need to show the end user a threaded history of the updates which have happened over time and the associated score with the comments.
Thanks
Abhishek S
We are looking at following a similar design pattern as timeline for the scorecard comments as well.
The measure level comments need to show the end user a threaded history of the updates which have happened over time and the associated score with the comments.
Thanks
Abhishek S
This would be fantastic to see
Is there any update on this capability?
Our use case is for a Sponsor Breadth measure which we use to track number of identified key stakeholders in the organization. The measure comments section has an automated comment "X roles assigned" which help CSMs and management to easily understand what's triggering the measure's score. However, there are exceptions when not all roles in an organization can be assigned (say 1 person is responsible for two key roles). We want the team to capture such exceptions in the comments section. However, the rule that populates the score for the measure will also override the comments section everyday. Is there an interim workaround we can deploy to keep both the automated and manual comments?
Our use case is for a Sponsor Breadth measure which we use to track number of identified key stakeholders in the organization. The measure comments section has an automated comment "X roles assigned" which help CSMs and management to easily understand what's triggering the measure's score. However, there are exceptions when not all roles in an organization can be assigned (say 1 person is responsible for two key roles). We want the team to capture such exceptions in the comments section. However, the rule that populates the score for the measure will also override the comments section everyday. Is there an interim workaround we can deploy to keep both the automated and manual comments?
+1Hi Sarah,
As of today, the comments populated via rules overwrite any existing comment. For the Sponsor Breadth Measure what is the data source (based on which the rules are run). Also, is there any way to identify that there is an exception for the account / the CSM has added manual comments ? (If so, one possible workaround to explore could be to avoid those accounts via rules & handle them differently)
As of today, the comments populated via rules overwrite any existing comment. For the Sponsor Breadth Measure what is the data source (based on which the rules are run). Also, is there any way to identify that there is an exception for the account / the CSM has added manual comments ? (If so, one possible workaround to explore could be to avoid those accounts via rules & handle them differently)
Hi Sai Ram! The data source is manual which means CSMs are assigning these roles to contacts. What the measure helps with is aggregating all sponsor breadth measures for a particular CSM so they know if some accounts still need to be updated.
I am not sure of a way to track if a manual comment was entered but now that I was thinking through the problem, one solution might be stopping the rule from running if the label remains the same. Say if the label is Red and the CSM has added a note in comments stating why. The rule shouldn't update the label and comments if the label is to stay the Red. Do you think this is doable?
I am not sure of a way to track if a manual comment was entered but now that I was thinking through the problem, one solution might be stopping the rule from running if the label remains the same. Say if the label is Red and the CSM has added a note in comments stating why. The rule shouldn't update the label and comments if the label is to stay the Red. Do you think this is doable?
+1Is this still being considered? This would be a huge improvement over the current system and make it much easier for our CSMs to capture historical context.
Sign up
If you ever had a profile with us, there's no need to create another one.
Don't worry if your email address has since changed, or you can't remember your login, just let us know at community@gainsight.com and we'll help you get started from where you left.
Else, please continue with the registration below.
Welcome to the Gainsight Community
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.