Welcome @Shilpa Gumnur!!

Can we please have the ability to make certain fields required on 360 UI side. Removing email as a required field is messing up our processes.

Additionally though being able to make Fname and Lname or custom fields is important too. Especially when trying to follow the guidance of person information being stored.

Tied to above, give the ability to update records with no email.

Since email is not required email and due to a gap of not being able to show name in certain areas we have to push it to the rel or co person level. However, due to no email we can;t update via rules. 

So, giving the ability to update records without emails. All we need is the gsid of the record when email is not present.

This a big topic and I’m sure other items will come up as we go along, but I will start out with

1. Allow admins the ability to write directly to the Person and Company Person tables (just like we do with Company) as opposed to (or in addition to)  a custom rule action type that limits our ability to manipulate data through rules (See the comment thread in the following post)

    

    

2.  

   4.  

   5.  

   6.  

@bradley @gunjanm @ana_g @davebrown2242 @keith_mattes @angela_domenichelli @sagan_sherlin @andreammelde I’m sure you awesome admins will have a point of view on our Person model and where it can get better. :)

I would also like to see Persons/Company Persons flagged in a visible/actionable way when their email experienced a hard bounced or there was some other issue with outbound communications related to their email address.  I don’t think this currently exists and would really help with company person sanitation.

I echo @darkknight’s last statement. A ‘ deliverability ’ flag/status that allows us to filter and surface Person issues would be huge.

Also the many other suggestions proposed for accessing and leveraging Person/Company Person objects.

agree with @darkknight and @davebrown2242 . The biggest thing that CSMs have a hard time with managing is the opt-out/ bounce of emails. If we could make this more obvious and manageable, it would help the CSMs keep their contacts up to date.

Right now I have a workaround where I added custom fields to the Person to update if they have opted out of certain categories but it is heavy for an admin management side, and not very surface-able to the CSM

Hello, @jean.nairon @Wayne @darkknight @davebrown2242 @andreammelde,

This is awesome!

Please allow me some time to dissect and ingest what’s been shared so far and I’ll be back with follow up questions wherever needed.

Thanks,

Shilpa

Thanks, @dan_ahrens for the shout-out.

Hi @Shilpa Gumnur glad to have you on board. I think @darkknight captured it in one of the community posts linked above, but just to lean on that:

• We need an improved UI for the Person section on the C360 / R360
  • The ability to sort and filter on data in the table (in a sticky fashion)
  • The ability to have multiple related list reports in a single People section
  • Horizonisation of the section’s UI
  • Being able to determine if the list view or people maps view is the default view for that section when people maps is enabled
  • We can turn the delete capability on or off, but we need to also allow admins to turn the add capability on or off
  • In Line editing (not critical, but it has improved the usability of other UIs like Cockpit)
  • Bulk actions (example: selecting multiple people records and setting their opt-out status to true in one action)
  • Clearer understanding of how using the Opt Out checkbox on the people records impacts the back end tables and how opting out in client emails impacts the People records on the 360
  • Seamless integration with the P360 in the future (I’m sure this is on the roadmap)
  • Clickable “mail-to” or “call” options for people, especially when accessing people from the Mobile App

I’m sure the community will continue to bring great ideas to the table. Thanks again for being so open to suggestions! 

@jnunes I have great news for you, few of the items (1, 3, 6, )from your list are under development and can be expected soon. l’lI add the remaining to my prioritisation bucket. 

Item 5, do you mean to have the delete functionality configurable by the admin in C360-Person Admin? If yes, that’s available in the current version.

Thanks,

Shilpa

@Shilpa Gumnur that’s good news. For #5, I was referring to being able to Show/Hide the “ADD” button on the People section of the 360. Lots of customers have asked for this, especially if contact management is handled in SFDC or some other system. They may want to prevent users from adding contacts in GS as it may get out of sync with their other systems.. Thanks again!

@jnunes Done, that’s also under development. C/R360 Person admin section will have the setting to configure the ‘Add’ button. 

Hi @Wayne,

Could you elaborate on “Tied to above, give the ability to update records with no email” in your second response? 

If email isn’t the resolution key, it’ll be treated like any other field and therefore can be removed from the config in 360.

That is correct for manual entry. I am talking about for rules. If you are doing an update to the person object the rules as of today require you to have an email field as an identifier/key. 

However, if you are sourcing from the person object you have their record GSID, can use that as the identifier/key instead, and not use email.

This resolves the ability to update all person records since email is no longer a required field.

@Wayne For Rules engine/connectors, email id isn’t mandatory if it isn’t the resolution key. Also, we cannot use GSID as the identifier due to technical complexities. Would you like to get on a call to discuss this further?

@Shilpa Gumnur being able to use the Person GSID as the unique identifier would be great. This is currently causing problems for our bi-directional GS  Sync. Some teams create contacts in SF, others in GS.

1. We can’t use the email as we have multiple contacts with the same email in SF.
2. We can’t use external ID as we create new persons in Gainsight that don’t have an external ID at first.

Therefore, we don’t have much options to use as unique identifier. I will probably go ahead and create a custom field populated by the Person GSID so I can use it as unique identifier, not ideal.

@Shilpa Gumnur, adding additional details to my last comment. Creating a custom calculated field that is a copy of Person GSID doesn’t work either as we can’t select a calculated field as unique identifier. That being said, it is not possible to have the bi-directional sync to work and allow users to create contacts in SF AND in GS.

Hi @obarrette,

We’re working on a capability that’ll be able to detect such inconsistencies and fix them from the backend. You can expect it early next year.

@Shilpa Gumnur can you provide more details on this? GS is working on the possibility of using GS Person ID as unique identifier or something else? 

Hey @obarrette,

I’ve spoken to @pgeorge, the PM for this feature and she will help you with a detailed explanation for this.

Adding a strong +1 to this request (cited below) from @jnunes referring to the ability for an admin to remove the +Person on the C360 Person section.

We only bring in contacts from Salesforce, CSMs do not add contacts in Gainsight. Giving them the ability to do so, when it is not in our system process to be able to do so, causes major issues with contact hygiene. 
 

• We can turn the delete capability on or off, but we need to also allow admins to turn the add capability on or off

@sarahmiracle you can expect it soon, we’re working towards making the ‘Add Person’ configurable.

@obarrette 

To confirm the understanding from my side. Are duplicates being created because of teams creating contacts from Salesforce and Gainsight?

We are currently working on the capability to sync contact creation and updates in Salesforce in Real time and also from Gainsight to Salesforce

With that we will be able to solve the duplicates being created. Gainsight will be able to identify the source of the record, either Gainsight or Salesforce and will avoid creating duplicates.

Would this help with the painpoint you are facing?

Thank you

Preethi