Just based off your description above, I think you’ll find that creating 7 different relationship types is going to be way more work than its worth if all you really need is a different CTA layout. Consider that you will need to maintain 7 different R360s, 7 different scorecards, 7 different types of “load to relationship” rules, etc. Typically if your relationships fit into one tidy umbrella (in your case, “product”), it is much more preferable to just keep that one relationship type.
You can always separate the CTA types instead if that’s your main use case - e.g. perhaps have a “Lifecycle - MTG, Risk - MTG, Lifecycle - IES, Risk - IES, etc.” type of thing. That’s also quite a bit of overhead, but significantly less than if you were to separate all your relationship types.
Just based off your description above, I think you’ll find that creating 7 different relationship types is going to be way more work than its worth if all you really need is a different CTA layout. Consider that you will need to maintain 7 different R360s, 7 different scorecards, 7 different types of “load to relationship” rules, etc. Typically if your relationships fit into one tidy umbrella (in your case, “product”), it is much more preferable to just keep that one relationship type.
You can always separate the CTA types instead if that’s your main use case - e.g. perhaps have a “Lifecycle - MTG, Risk - MTG, Lifecycle - IES, Risk - IES, etc.” type of thing. That’s also quite a bit of overhead, but significantly less than if you were to separate all your relationship types.
Thank you so much for your insight. I will definitely keep this in mind as we discuss the path forward.