I've been struggling with Scorecards 2.0 the last couple of days, loosing hours and hours of work trying to get them to update properly. At first I thought that you could only update a 2.0 scorecard if you went and loaded it on the accounts C360 page, but then you would be able to load to it forever, but I've just made a new realization.
You can only update the scorecard that is actively loaded on the C360 page.
I switched over to Scorecards 2.0 from 1.0 because of the ability to have multiple scorecards. For all my accounts, I want to have a general Health Scorecard (with NPS score, CSM sentiment, etc. etc.) and a Features Health Scorecard that goes through all features and displays the usage, but now I can only update the one that is currently loaded on the C360 page.
I want to keep them both updated and allow the CSMs to have the ability to switch between the two, but it doesn't seem like I can do that. Am I wrong? Was this intentionally built in or is it a bug? If it's intentional, I would love to know the rational behind it...
Question
Multiple 2.0 Scorecards For 1 Account
Hi,
The use case for multiple scorecards is not about setting multiple scorecards for one account.
It is for the ability to segment your customer base and score each segment of your customer base differently - by stage, status, customer lifecycle etc.
For example - Your High Touch customers could have a completely different set of measures and scoring mechanisms when compared to your low touch customers. So , you can create multiple scorecards and create criteria for assigning a scorecard to your customers.
For the use case you have in mind, there is an alternative I can think right now which could help -
Create Scorecard Groups - One for General Health(this will contain NPS, Sentiment etc.) and the other for Product(This could have the measures which capture product health and capture the health of product adoption , support ticket etc.)
Do let me know if this works.
Thanks
Abhishek S
The use case for multiple scorecards is not about setting multiple scorecards for one account.
It is for the ability to segment your customer base and score each segment of your customer base differently - by stage, status, customer lifecycle etc.
For example - Your High Touch customers could have a completely different set of measures and scoring mechanisms when compared to your low touch customers. So , you can create multiple scorecards and create criteria for assigning a scorecard to your customers.
For the use case you have in mind, there is an alternative I can think right now which could help -
Create Scorecard Groups - One for General Health(this will contain NPS, Sentiment etc.) and the other for Product(This could have the measures which capture product health and capture the health of product adoption , support ticket etc.)
Do let me know if this works.
Thanks
Abhishek S
Hi,
Is there any plans to add the ability to have multiple scorecards for an account in the future?
While your alternative would technically work, it's not ideal as my Feature Scorecard has its own groups within it, and I don't believe you have have groups within groups in a scorecard. Also, I need to set the weights specifically for that scorecard, and I can't set weights specifically for a group. The rollup that would happen for my features right now wouldn't be helpful to me.
Thanks
Is there any plans to add the ability to have multiple scorecards for an account in the future?
While your alternative would technically work, it's not ideal as my Feature Scorecard has its own groups within it, and I don't believe you have have groups within groups in a scorecard. Also, I need to set the weights specifically for that scorecard, and I can't set weights specifically for a group. The rollup that would happen for my features right now wouldn't be helpful to me.
Thanks
1 person likes this
+1Dallis,
I currently have 2 different scorecards assigned to the same account. They use different scheme and completely different measures, but you need to flip between the two to update the score (plus you also affect what is displayed in the summary based on the latest scorecard that was opened). Are you saying this is not working or am I understanding your use case incorrectly? I'm concerned in case something down the line stops working or I have a limitation on what scorecards I can edit.
I currently have 2 different scorecards assigned to the same account. They use different scheme and completely different measures, but you need to flip between the two to update the score (plus you also affect what is displayed in the summary based on the latest scorecard that was opened). Are you saying this is not working or am I understanding your use case incorrectly? I'm concerned in case something down the line stops working or I have a limitation on what scorecards I can edit.
I could flip back and forth, but I have 200+ accounts that I would have to do this for. It would take me hours to flip all of them over, update the values and then flip them all back. I would also be afraid that my CSMs may flip the scorecards when I wasn't expecting them to and put a hold on automatic updates that I thought were happening.
Again, while technically it would work, it's far too unreliable and time consuming to consider implementing in our org.
Again, while technically it would work, it's far too unreliable and time consuming to consider implementing in our org.
+1Ok, I understand now what you mean. Yes, I had the same conversation with GS like 1 hour ago. Would be good if there was a backend interface by which those values could be updated in bulk.
The need to be able to have weightings by GROUP is a necessity. We have essentially 2 different scorecards that could apply to a single account - but cannot implement scorecards 2.0 because we cannot assign weightings (group A = 100%, group b = 100%) to calc the scores correctly.
+2Hi Heather,
Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, Scorecards 2.0 allows this. You can assign relative weights that add up to more than 100% and the system will prorate them accordingly.
In the example below I have a Group A (in blue) with 3 score criteria that collectively add up to 100 and Group B (in orange) with 3 different score criteria that also add up to 100. All together they sum to 200, but the system weights them using pro rating logic (in red). This allows you retain Group rollups and overall score contributions:
Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, Scorecards 2.0 allows this. You can assign relative weights that add up to more than 100% and the system will prorate them accordingly.
In the example below I have a Group A (in blue) with 3 score criteria that collectively add up to 100 and Group B (in orange) with 3 different score criteria that also add up to 100. All together they sum to 200, but the system weights them using pro rating logic (in red). This allows you retain Group rollups and overall score contributions:
VP of Customer Success at Forcepoint
1 person likes this
I need the % contribution to be by group, not overall scorecard. so one group = 100% and the other = 100%. the example you have is that they all still add up to 100% total.
1 person likes this
+2So the way that this is done is to ensure that the numbers in each group (blue and orange in my example) add up to 100.
So Group A = 100% and Group B=100% and equally contribute to the master overall health score.
Is this what you intended?
So Group A = 100% and Group B=100% and equally contribute to the master overall health score.
Is this what you intended?
I can go back and try again but was told by a CS Architect that what I needed to do wasn't possible.
+2Show them this thread and see what they think. It is certainly possible that they have caught an exception case that I'm not thinking of. 🙂
+1This isn’t too far off from the challenge that I am currently having. Our accounts often have multiple locations doing business and each of those locations could be in a different stage of the lifecycle. For instance, we may have an account using our software in 10 locations. 7 may be live and 3 may be in the process of implementing. In an ideal world, I’d have separate scorecards by location but I don’t think that’s possible at this time.
However, we also have single location accounts that it sounds like we could tie the scorecard being used automatically, to some field that determines which part of the customer journey they are in. I’d be pleased if I’m understanding that correctly and could picture three scorecards:
- Single Entity Implementation Health
- Multi-Entity Blended Scorecard with elements of implementation and live scoring taken into account on one scorecard
- Fully Live for both single and multi-entity accounts that are fully into live mode
Would this be done with the “Add Criteria” option at the bottom of the scorecard setup?
+13
I think that “Add Criteria” would definitely work to tell it which scorecard to use based on Stage. I think where you’ll have some challenges is the Multi-Entity. If they are all on one Gainsight account, and you want to calculate the measures differently for each entity, I don’t think you’d be able to do that. BUT that would depend on how your scorecard measures are set up.
Relationships might be a better option for that where each entity would have it’s own scorecard. I’m not sure how that would roll up to the top level company though.
Reply
Sign up
If you ever had a profile with us, there's no need to create another one.
Don't worry if your email address has since changed, or you can't remember your login, just let us know at community@gainsight.com and we'll help you get started from where you left.
Else, please continue with the registration below.
Welcome to the Gainsight Community
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.