Recent Gainsight Assist changes introduce risks/challenges

Thanks a lot for your responses.

For logging inbound emails we can restrict the logging of mails until all mandatory fields are filled. We have an ‘Add ‘ button which will be disabled unless all fields are filled.

For logging outbound emails, I need to see how can we restrict the logging of mails. I will check with the designer.

Will wait for responses from other admins as well.

Till now what I understand is, restrict logging of mails (inbound or outbound) unless mandatory fields are filled. 

Till now what I understand is, restrict logging of mails (inbound or outbound) unless mandatory fields are filled. 

I would abstract out at least one step and adopt, as a rule across the CSP, no record creation unless the mandatory fields are completed.

I realize this may sound draconian, especially for a CSM handling an increasingly large book of business who is attempting to work more efficiently and just wants to get their emails logged. However, the mandatory fields are mandatory because they reflect a process or a workflow that’s been designed to be effective. When loopholes develop which do not honor the “mandatory fields” paradigm, the process breaks down and potentially loses its impact.

Hi Community! We need your feedback via a Virtual Customer Advisory Meeting with our Product Management team.

What is the VCAM about?

• We’ve received multiple requests to display mandatory fields associated with an activity type in GS Assist plugins. Based on this feedback, we’ve created a few design iterations and want to gather input from CSMs and admins.
• Restricting  logging emails to timeline unless mandatory fields are filled

What is the Agenda of the VCAM? 

• To present and discuss design options for displaying mandatory fields in GS Assist plugins.
• Making company/relationship dropdown mandatory
• Removing the capability to send outbound emails to global timeline draft

What is the outcome you are looking for as part of this VCAM?

We aim to:

• Share design iterations with participants.
• Gather feedback on the proposed designs.
• Resolve open questions and finalise the design that best aligns with the needs of admins and CSMs.

When is this happening?

• Tuesday (outlook designs)  10th December  2024  -  11:00  AM ET / 8:00 AM PT/ 09:30 PM IST
• Thursday  (chrome designs) 12th December  2024  -  11:00  AM ET / 8:00 AM PT/ 09:30 PM IST

Who is the right person to enroll for the VCAM?

• Admins who have enabled GS Assist for their CSMs
• CSMs who actively use GS Assist plugins.

What should you do?

• Please register for the roundtable to the slots provided using this form. We will reply with a calendar invitation. If you cannot use Google Forms due to company restrictions you can email productops@gainisght.com to sign up. 

General question for administrators...why can’t CSMs start the timeline in Gainsight and update the required fields as their on the call with the client?  

It’s not that they can’t. It’s that they won’t.

And who could blame them? If a process is curated to require certain fields for certain Timeline entries, and that process has a loophole within such that you can create that entry without the required fields, it becomes increasingly unlikely, in the busy life of a CSM, that they would revisit Timeline to fill in otherwise required fields.

Additionally, the issue stems from Timeline entries originating from the email plug-ins. I suggest it’s less likely there would be a call later in which the CSM would enter required fields that originated in an email-based entry.

I would also add to this *nor should they have to* (which, admittedly, kind of paraphrases the rest of your message ​@matthew_lind ). The question I would like to see asked more is not “why don’t admins/users/etc just do it the prescribed way?” and more “how can I take this need for a ‘desire path’ that is being communicated, and accomodate for that need?”

Our businesses have a need to capture certain elements of data. End users should have an easy time going about their work to add that data. The two should not be mutually exclusive.

I can no more easily justify to a leader why data is missing than I can justify to a CSM why they have to have a convoluted workflow to capture said data.

As ​@darkknight points out, the “making it easier” on CSMs in this case is really only surface level. They’re not able to completely execute a task, thereby requiring more steps than before to actually accomplish it.

While I certainly understand the need to make it easier for CSMs document key data points, and I don’t disagree we should eventually allow other field configurations in TL to be pulled into GS assist, I see this as a nice to have not a absolute need to have for the following reasons. 

• “Clicks” CSMs will offer feedback about to many clicks in GS assist to fill in required fields 
• C/R360: if they are logging into GS to prep for call...why can’t they start the timeline there? It’s like you’re right there just start the TL entry, why would you take an inefficient approach to documenting the client engagement? i.e taking notes in an email just to rewrite those notes as an email, or taking notes in another location then copying and pasting those in an email
• GS Home: was created to help with this type of efficiency gain
• Zoom: If you use zoom you can still use the GS App within Zoom to take notes (not AI follow up) 
• There are Additional optimized ways to capture data ..surveys etc (not lost on this group) 

My general concern is sometimes these produce enhancements can work against us, because it promotes bad adoption of Gainsight as a tool. It gives CSMs creedence that they just have to write emails which don’t always capture the full interaction with a client, but it feels like it’s promoting a reactive state vs proactive state.  

I appreciate the convo and thoughtful feedback, it’s all well intentioned on making GS better in the long run

I think this kind of makes my point though - I understand this basically to mean (in paraphrase) “If CSMs did it the Gainsight Way instead of how they are doing it now, then this request doesn’t achieve much”. What we are trying to convey, is that CSMs are *not* doing things the Gainsight Way because it is often too rigid and the platform needs to support other ways of working in a way that functions for our users and the business.

I would rather Gainsight think our adoption is bad, and have happy users that use the product in a way that works for them and gets the business the data we need, then for us to do things in a way that Gainsight thinks is good, but no one else likes.

I think if we ignore the noise about specific feature use cases etc., that is sort of the core thing here. We’re basically trying to advocate for the desire path our users are expressing.

You do raise an interesting point with this though: “My general concern is sometimes these produce enhancements can work against us, because it promotes bad adoption of Gainsight as a tool. It gives CSMs creedence that they just have to write emails which don’t always capture the full interaction with a client, but it feels like it’s promoting a reactive state vs proactive state.”

This is a huge tangent and ​@darkknight captures some of my concerns here: 

but so long as the Gainsight AI tools are focused on only (or predominantly) on unstructured data living in Timeline, Gainsight itself is saying, in my view, with this “Timeline is the most important tool to get the insights and value out of Gainsight”, because if it lives anywhere else, Gainsight AI doesn’t see it. CTAs, Success Plans, etc., become the “extra work” because to get the sweet insights it needs to be in Timeline right?

To me, this is what the platform itself is emphasizing: “It gives CSMs creedence that they just have to write emails which don’t always capture the full interaction with a client, but it feels like it’s promoting a reactive state vs proactive state.” and it sounds like the call is coming from inside the house, not from community requests.

So my question(s) back would be: Do you think that with the current state of the GS AI tools, the recent acquisition around Staircase (basically a Timeline integration on steroids), there is any risk with CSMs (whose boss isn’t the CEO of Gainsight) resisting using anything other than Timeline because they were sold on AI value but it has to be in Timeline to count? And even if not, would there be any reason not to make working with Timeline as frictionless as possible, so that the structured data that many businesses still rely on is not lost in the process?

I might be on either side of putting way too much or not enough thought into this :) Good discourse either way.

​@elliot_hullverson 

This goes directly to point number 4 in my original post:

4. Similar to this idea, there may be Activity Types that are reserved for very specific processes that we do not want users to select through GA. 

Admins should be able to limit which Activity Types are available in Gainsight Assist, because GA is for logging/categorizing email exchanges with a customer. 

GA is not for general purpose Timeline logging (i.e. Meetings, general Updates), and this is where I think Gainsight’s failure to thoughtfully consider this feature design before rolling it out has caused you (and likely others) to confuse matters.

However, here are a couple of examples mandatory field use that would make sense via GA:

• TAMs with a contractual obligation to send Ticket Reports to their customers on a recurring basis choosing “Ticket Report” from an Update Type mandatory picklist field on the “Update” Activity Type 
• CSMs/TAMs soliciting Beta or Early Access participation from a customer capturing the “Program Name” and customer’s “Participation Status” (yes or no) on a custom Activity Type
• CSMs with a contractual obligation to send Quarterly ROI Summary reports to their customers choosing “ROI Summary” from an Update Type mandatory picklist field on the “Update” Activity Type 

This is why both Mandatory Field exposure and Activity Type access control are both critical to making use of this feature through GA more intuitive.

BINGO