Skip to main content

    Idea Pipeline

    Filter by idea status

    Filter by product area

    6166 Ideas

    darkknight
    darkknightExpert ⭐️

    New Scorecard Visualization Mass Edit feedbackNew Idea

    At a quick glance of the new Scorecard Visualizations I see a couple of issues right off the bat. For a manually configured Letter-based score, the letters are not in alphabetical order:   Also it’s weird that in the filter box they are in reverse (almost) alphabetical order (it was that way in the “old” Mass Edit view as well, which I always thought was odd) We don’t even have an “E” score - why is that displaying above? According to the Update Scores and Add Notes docs, if you check the “Add Notes” box it’s supposed to bring up a new Timeline Activity window. It’s not doing that in my environment. The “Stale” visual indicator is too subtle. I had to look VERY close to tell that if it’s stale there are diagononal lines going through the score.  The ! in a circle was so much easier to recognize. StaleNot Stale  The filters are misleading for end users, making it seem like you can search by Grade (Letter), Color OR Numeric scheme, when in fact it only works for the scoring scheme you’re on.  We are on Letter Grade scheme, and In the “old” Scorecard Mass Edit, the filter only allows me to select a letter grade as a filterable option.  Color and Numeric aren’t even options: But the “new” mass edit lists ALL schemes as options - but Color and Numeric do not work when you attempt to use them, which will mislead users and lead to more support tickets.    The way Timeline was accessible via the old Mass Edit report was better - you could hover over the timeline icon and see the comments history.  That appears to now be gone and you can only see the “Last Comment.”  This is not a great functionality change because now end users will have to navigate to the C360 in order to see the TL history: Old ViewNew View (Last Comment only)  These are just a few issues I’ve identified spending about half an hour with this.  Our end users will mostly see this “enhancement” as a downgrade compared to the current functionality.  I don’t feel we can roll this out to our end users until most of this is addressed.(The “Add Comment” while making a score change will be a nice adjustment, once it’s working).

    bradley
    bradleyExpert ⭐️

    More Fields Allowing URL links to records in reportingNew Idea

    Background: You have cases in SFDC on your standard case object. You run a report on those cases in Gainsight off the SFDC object and your Case Number field hyperlinks to each individual case. This is great, we love this. Problem: This functionality is very limited and isn’t well documented. From what I can tell, some number and type of fields support this functionality for some (all?) standard SFDC objects. Given there is no clear documentation on when this behavior occurs, it is hard to know when to expect it and when not to. If I for examle have an Invoice object in SFDC and run a report with a field showing Invoice Number I would want to be able to click on those invoice numbers to take me to that record. Currently, that is not supported even though the field type is the same as Case Number. Proposed Solution: There are several options, implementing any one of them likely depends on how cumbersom it is to implement, and these are just ideas:Enable linking for any AutoNumber field type in SFDC objects. This would be the most ideal from an end-user perspective. Just have this work out of the box. Create a framework where users can enable this on a per object basis. If enabling everything automatically isn’t a great idea, allow admins to turn it on when needed. Less ideal but better than the current state. Create a process where admins can request Gainsight enable the functionality on a per object basis. This is the least ideal, as it creates alot of work for both teams, but still better than the current state.I’ve looked at a few other product requests such as this one  and some of the proposed workarounds where you injest the entire object into Gainsight, create a custom field and hope that works aren’t really viable. You end up with more duplicate data than you need as well as another point of failure, not to mention quite a bit of work to replicate a process that is clearly possible for Gainsight to implement already on some level.