Allow ability to disable "all" Statuses for specific CTA types

Related products: CS Cockpit & Playbooks

Somewhat related to this idea, but I need to use different CTA Statuses for one CTA Type. However, for all other CTA Types I need to keep the same core set of Statuses.

In the current implementation, I can create additional statuses under a specific CTA Type, but I cannot hide the other cross-type statuses from visibility within the specific CTA Type.

I need the ability to configure a CTA Type so that it will not inherit one or all of the “All” Type statuses. 

 

Same should go for Reason, Priority, Snooze Reason.


Hi @darkknight ,

 

We are simplifying the creating and editing process for all CTA Attributes with the Admin Redesign project that is about to be finished soon. 

The inheritance concept has been simplified so I think your ask will be possible after that. I am changing the status of this idea to in development. We can revisit if this is solved or not after the release.

 

Thanks,

Monica


No StatusIN DEVELOPMENT

Thanks for the update @mpatra - you’ve referred to this “Admin Redesign Project” in several posts now. Question for you: have any admins been directly involved in giving feedback on the planned designs? Since this is specifically targeting admins, I for one would like to see what these redesign plans are and give feedback on them before they make it to beta, where often very little design feedback is accepted.

Thoughts @bradley @heather_hansen @gunjanm @spencer_engel @zach_davis @TMaier @matthew_lind @sarahmiracle @ddezuniga?


Thanks for the update @mpatra - you’ve referred to this “Admin Redesign Project” in several posts now. Question for you: have any admins been directly involved in giving feedback on the planned designs? Since this is specifically targeting admins, I for one would like to see what these redesign plans are and give feedback on them before they make it to beta, where often very little design feedback is accepted.

Thoughts @bradley @heather_hansen @gunjanm @spencer_engel @zach_davis @TMaier @matthew_lind @sarahmiracle @ddezuniga?

I know I’ve given plenty of feedback to Gainsight about any number of things, but I know nothing of this, though possibly have contributed unbeknownst to me. Seems like something admin feedback early and often would have been useful.


I get why admin redesign/revamp might be too high level. We’ll be more specific about what’s coming. Happy to connect directly as well.

The other issue is timing. We started doing research for these improvements last year. There were VCAMs in June and Dec 2022, and a combined Ops Council session in April this year.

 

 

 


@manu_mittal I personally would like to have a look at the designs around what’s currently in development. I mean no disrespect here, but every time a new feature comes out in Gainsight, it leaves a lot to be desired from an administrative perspective.  Parity gaps are very common for new versions of existing features.  If these enhancements are truly intended to improve administrative effort, then I think it would be a smart idea to get some experienced admins together to review the designs and give feedback on them before you roll them out. 

I don’t like the idea of waiting for the beta because GS betas rarely seem to take actionable design feedback; they are more focused on fixing bugs (which is why I personally don’t participate in them anymore).