• Home
  • Ideas
  • Ability to create success plan objectives and tasks via rules engine

Ability to create success plan objectives and tasks via rules engine

Related products: None
We currently track business objectives via a separate object with each business goal its own record on that object. It would be wonderful if I could take these business goals from our object and use the rules engine and filters to create success plan objectives and even tasks. I would love to be able to use TAGs in the name of the objective and comments. So the experience would be as follows > Sales adds in business goals into the SF object and Gainsight picks those up and throws them into a Success Plan for Services. I would then like to take any updates provided on the Success Plan and push them to the SF object update for everyone to be able to see. 
At what point does Sales determine these business goals?  We are starting to have sales populate Success Plans to streamline the handoff process and provide a consistent view of goals from Sales to services.  This does mean we are bringing some prospects into Gainsight as "Inactive" customers.
Capturing these business goals before the doc is signed most often. Problem would be that sales would all need a basic license to do that. Also, Success plans are not visible to everyone in the org, only those with Gainsght access. So those that it really does not make sense to have a GS license would not be able to see them. 
Another use case for creating Success Plan Objectives via the Rules Engine:





If an organization changes a Success Plan template, let's say to add another Objective, there is currently no way to update existing Success Plans aside from manually. When a user has a lot of active Success Plans, and many users are using Success Plans, this adds up.
I'd like to resurrect this thread related to having the ability to add an objective to an existing success plan.





The use case would be for using Success Plans to track the customer journey/lifecycle. Each stage of the customer lifecycle would be a distinct success plan objective with a list of associated tasks (playbook).





The requirement would be to allow for flexibility in timing as the customer moves from each stage of the lifecycle. If all of the phases of the lifecycle (objectives in the success plan) were added at the very beginning, there would not be flexibility in the cascading of due dates. For example, if Phase 1 normally takes 30 days but in an exception case it takes 90 days, we'd like Phase 2 to start on day 91, not day 31.





By only loading in the current lifecycle phase that the customer is on into the Success Plan, focus can remain on the current phase. And when the customer exits that phase, the rule would load the next phase into the success plan.





Happy to explain this further to clarify the use case. 





Also interested to see if anyone else would be interested in this approach.
We utilize CTAs for that specific use case. The rules generate based off the customer journey.
Agreed. That's definitely a possible approach. One advantage of doing it all within a single success plan though is related to visibility and grouping of all of the CTAs related to the lifecycle in a single view. 





It also makes it easy to run a Success Snapshot export and show a complete roll up report on the entire lifecycle journey!


https://support.gainsight.com/Product_Documentation/CTAS_Tasks_and_Playbooks/User_Guides/11_Exportin...
I have a customer with a strong use case for automatically creating Success Plans via Rules Engine: large Account Mgmt Team that has to manage 3-4 "Account Plans" per year per high-touch customer.  There are different drivers, including a year-long renewal plan, expansion plan, etc.  Would save many clicks and labor at scale to be able to trigger based on date and certain other milestones with specific Success Plan templates.  This is the highest value use case today for this customer's AM team that is currently managing via MS Word.  Roadmap item?
Hi Ruben,





Ability to create success plans via rules engine and apply template to it is already available but we cannot create individual objectives (outside of a success plan) from rules engine.





Thanks,


Nitisha
Wanted to add my 2 cents here. I have a survey going out to new customers asking them to give us an overview of their use case (i.e. telling us what features are most important to them). I want to build a success plan for them based on that feedback, making sure they're getting use out of each of these features by the time the implementation is over. Creating a master success plan with dynamic objectives based on survey response would be a great way to do this. Without it I'm left with much messier options of how to accomplish this. I'm either jamming a square peg into a round hole via the rules engine (creating a success plan or CTA for every feature, of which there could be upwards of 30) or asking my CSMs for a bunch of manual effort to put the objectives in for every customer (not scalable).
That is a great idea. We decided to swim upstream and capture it in the sales cycle since that is what they are supposed to find out anyway 🙂. 
Resurrecting this thread as we came across this requirement today. Any plans to have this functionality in place? What we are looking for is for a way in which we can add objectives (from templates or even simply by adding playbooks) to an existing Success Plan. Thanks!
Also resurrecting -- Our success plans are rather long term and there may be changes in the account that we will want to add a template or single CTA/Playbook through the rules engine to the plan instead of having to have the CSM do it manually.
Hi Jennifer, I'm interested in understanding your use case a little bit more. You mentioned that changes in the account might necessitate adding a CTA/Playbook to the plan. 





Would these changes be driven by data sufficiently reliable enough to turn things over to a fully automated rule or would human assessment or approval be needed for the change to the account?





What are some examples of a change in the account? And if it's a single CTA/Playbook, would it make sense to trigger a CTA separately (vs. adding an objective to the Success Plan)?
I came across this Idea as we've been struggling to use Success Plans due to the level of manual effort required to create the various objectives for capturing and measuring a customers business drivers & measures of success.  Consider the following use case:


1. In SFDC we have a multi-select field that allows the Sales / PS team to quickly capture the customer business drivers based on a pre-defined list.  They may only select 1 or 2 drivers or many (say 10).


2. What I'd like to do is when the Success Plan is created have the rules engine parse the multi-select field and create an objective for each one.


3. The measure of success would still need to be manually added per objective but the heavy lifting of auto-creating the objectives would still be done as well as any associated tasks (e.g. baseline the measure)





I doubt we'll be able to use Success Plans without this - perhaps for now can automate in a somewhat similar fashion via an MDA table but Success Plans seem like a much better fit.
Yeah no easy way of doing this but if you go about it the opposite way it could reduce time/effort. You can auto create a success plan and associate a playbook that would have all 10 objectives and then the CSM would just go in and delete the ones they do not want which is a little easier than creating them? Maybe?
I guess that could work but seems like a bit of a hack .. :|
@tim I have exactly the same use case. We have a survey going out that captures the main desired outcomes over the first 30 days. Did you find a way of doing this visa Success Plans in the end?
I was speaking with a customer on this topic today as well.





One of the hidden benefits they have found with Objective CTAs inside the Success Plan is the ability to create timeline activities w/ attachments, notes, etc. specifically related to those objectives. This allows the team to easily go back and look at historical notes related to one big topic. They can create these objectives to schedule & execute the review and store its necessary documents within that timeline record. THEN create a recurring objective for 6 months out once they identify a completed timeline record with that review box checked off.





long story short, this would allows them to automatically keep that success plan moving forward with a new objective, once criteria is met



Would love to see an update on this. We track risk for onboarding projects inside the success plans that are run by onboarding engineers, as a risk objective. If I could automatically create those for the team, it would allow for greater accuracy and less manual work.



@sai_ram any update on this?

Applying/appending multiple templates to existing success plan via rules engine is the medium term roadmap. Upvotes will help in prioritising - “creating/updating objectives in the success plan via rules” - for the future roadmaps. 

@Anil Raj Pujari  this would be very helpful to trigger new objectives to an existing success plan. this has 30 upvotes - at what point is it considered high enough voted to be added to a roadmap?

@andreammelde apparently it’s also a 6 year old request 

it’s so popular a new request gets created every couple of years :)

This is going to be big for us too. We’ve been going through a whole initiative of having sales understand and document the customer’s objectives prior to the sale. We want those objectives to be created as objectives within the success plan automatically when that opportunity is closed won. While there is some standardization that could lend its way towards templates, some of the objectives are also very specific and details captured within them that should go into the success criteria or other fields on the objective CTA. In short, templates are not going to work for us. Instead, CSMs will have to manually create their success plan objectives based on work that has already been done by the sales team and should be loaded in automatically

 

What’s the reasoning on not allowing objective CTAs to be created in the rules engine? Is it a technical limitation? Is it that Gainsight doesn’t see the use case? 

 

Because this thread is 6 years old and has more votes than most. I think it’s pretty clear: we need the ability to create Objective CTAs in the rules engine! I hope this isn’t getting looked over because it is labeled as “partially fixed”. I’m not even sure what part of it has supposedly been fixed

@anirbandutta can you send help?

Terms & ConditionsCookie settings