Permission Bundle: Navigation > Administration > Cockpit > Playbook Only

good idea! if gainsight wants to make their product more sticky, and reduce administrative burden, allowing for this level of granularity of permissions would be really helpful. it would allow me as an admin to dole out playbook-specific permissions for our ops team, without having any concern that they would be dabbling in areas of the product that they shouldn’t be in.

Thanks for submitting this @benwanlessmenlo! We previously gave a handful of users playbook-only access. The current permissions grant more than they should for this feature. I agree that this needs to be restricted back to the original set-up.

100% -- I used to admin a system back in the early 2010’s that allowed feature-specific permissioning, literally by checkboxes for “select everything in one feature family” as well as “view vs edit” control on per feature level, where everything rolled up into feature families and categories. Disappointing that we don’t have that ability.

Completely agree. Creating and updating playbooks is an easy task to give to a non-admin so that admins don’t become the bottleneck for these changes. I can appreciate the new UI and how everything CTA-related is consolidated in one place. However, when a new UI is created, we should be mindful of functionality we are losing because that’s what happened here. We used to have the ability to give playbook only permissions and now we can’t give playbook access without giving more permissions than we’re comfortable with as well. A new UI should mean better functionality, not regressing functionality!

I love Option 1 that @benwanlessmenlo presented

Option 2 was me being just a tad cheeky. 😅

Joining the choir here; Playbook-only create, edit, delete permissions are a valuable collaborative feature.

1. As the choir points out, this was previously possible, and became unavailable concurrent with the CTA config changes.
2. It’s a very common use case to permission strong, process-aware CSMs to build and maintain Playbooks. In fact, it’s among the first Admin-esque permissions I previously granted, which sped up Playbook development, promoted a sense of team within Gainsight CS and freed me up for more complex work.
3. That same CSM may not be qualified to define CTA Status, Reason, Type values, layouts, etc. That’s very much a different layer of process, and it would be easy for a well-meaning but untrained CSM to make detrimental changes.
4. The less-granular current permission structure means GS Admins may now end up maintaining Playbooks, which often isn’t the highest and best use of GS Admin expertise and bandwidth.

Though I can give my “Playbook Admins” a strong Spiderman speech emphasizing “With great power comes great responsibility”, the risk of Gainsight CS issues is enhanced when we cannot guardrail that power in an appropriate way.

This is so well said, @mindy. And applicable to more than just this -- dynamic JO, I’m looking at you!