+1.  This would be amazing - basically setting IF statements to deal with metrics or segment/tier type conditions would expand the applicability of certain measures that remain static today, even if (as in Dave's example) the measure should dominate a scorecard's weight if # of cases goes up.  

---

This would be a huge value add for us. We have measures that purposefully have NA for some accounts and not others. With the current weighting functionality, this NA is treated as a 0 which is worse than Red. 



Ideal state - Similar to exceptions, we could say if all measure has value then use weighting version 1, else use weighting version 2. 



In weighting version 2, we could remove the weight on the measure that has NA. 



Today, we could create a separate scorecard, but that makes life harder for us when building out org level reporting since the scores live in different objects. 

---

Yes, please! I had a client request the ability to dynamically weight scorecard measures based on the ARR of the product. This use case makes a ton of sense because you would want a 100k ARR product to represent a larger factor than a 5k ARR product. 

---

Hi all,



If I am understanding this need correctly, it would allow us to do something like "if measure X is red, apply a 20% weight to it but if it is yellow, apply 10% only". I just want to make sure this is currently not possible in Gainsight.

---

Yes, that is correct.

---

Added my vote +1

---

Hi All,



Thanks a lot for sharing this. A couple of question I had on this:



 - Do you think having dynamic weights would make it difficult for the end user to actually understand what the score means & how to improve it?

- For segments/ARR use-case would having multiple scorecards work? (Agree, that having multiple scorecards introduces some reporting challenges...assuming that will be taken care of...would it make sense to have multiple scorecards Or would there still be a need to have dynamic weighting?)

- For the "support" measures use-case: would scorecard exceptions help? (Or are there any gaps there?)



Regards

---

[i]Do you think having dynamic weights would make it difficult for the end user to actually understand what the score means & how to improve it?



For my use case, I don't see this as an issue. If there 3+ levels of branching then I could see it get confusing, but right now we're only talking about 2. Also, I haven't gone into much detail around specific weightings because we have a few key measures that really drive the overall score. We have exception rules in place so if any of those are red, the entire score is red. This means the focus is primarily on these key measures so I don't think the specific weighting matters much to the end user.



However, I could see a scenario where the dynamic weighting could be confusing. I think as long as there aren't too many branches this isn't a big issue.

---

Hello Everyone,

Happy to announce that your request has been considered and included as part of the v6.15 release. Admins can now configure the weight of the measure group to the overall score, as well as the weight of each individual measure within the group. This means, instead of directly impacting the overall score, individual measure scores contribute to the group score, which then contributes to the overall health score. If individual measures become NA, their percentage is redistributed within the group and the measure group percentage remains the same. If all of the measures in the group become NA, then the group’s percentage is redistributed among other groups according to the same ratio as their existing percentages.

This feature is implemented in both SFDC and NXT versions.

Thanks for posting!

---