Skip to main content
bradley
Expert ⭐️
July 2, 2024
New Idea

Associated Records: Allow Company and Relationship Cross Association

Related products:CS Timeline & Activity Tracking
  • July 2, 2024
  • 2 replies
  • 85 views

This is admittedly very similar to a couple of other requests that I found, but wanted to make a more generic request on the topic (similar ones below, worth reviewing/voting).

 

User Story: As a CSM, I want the ability to create a Timeline Record at the Company entity level, and associate it at the Relationship entity level for one or more of that Companies relationships (and vice versa), so that I can more effectively manage my documentation across entity levels.

 

Example Use Case: At Company Inc., we use relationships to track projects for our customers. As a CSM for Company Inc., I want to have the ability to log an event that is applicable to my Project Success Plan Objective for the Relationship AND for my Company level Renewal Success Plan Objective without creating it twice.

 

Also, as a CSM, I have no real need to understand the technical entity distinction between Company and Relationship, just how to use them. The fact that it is possible to do this same workflow between Company Success Plan Objectives, or between Relationship Success Plan objectives makes this an even more confusing process and point of friction between myself, the tool and my platform team.

 

While, as an admin, I appreciate the distinction, I am unable to make the platform work better for my users and have to constantly fight the “why does it work like this here but not here?” questions, which is a problem I myself wonder about all the time just from a configuration standpoint on the back end.

 

This type of friction leads to our users complaining to mangers/leaders, not following workflows, and ultimately becomes one in a series of questions execs will ask about why they are using this as a tool.

 

 

 

Related posts

 

 

2 replies

romihache
VIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
July 3, 2024

 

While, as an admin, I appreciate the distinction, I am unable to make the platform work better for my users and have to constantly fight the “why does it work like this here but not here?” questions, which is a problem I myself wonder about all the time just from a configuration standpoint on the back end.

 

 

Do you mean… that lack of parity is an issue? 😅

Continuous improvement is better than delayed perfection
dayn.johnson
VIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
July 3, 2024

Also, as a CSM, I have no real need to understand the technical entity distinction between Company and Relationship, just how to use them. The fact that it is possible to do this same workflow between Company Success Plan Objectives, or between Relationship Success Plan objectives makes this an even more confusing process and point of friction between myself, the tool and my platform team.

This type of friction leads to our users complaining to mangers/leaders, not following workflows, and ultimately becomes one in a series of questions execs will ask about why they are using this as a tool.

 

#productparity for a frictionless UX!

Staff CS Content & Comms Manager, 2x Gainsight CS Ops Product Council Member