Not Planned

[Feature Request] Multiple 2.0 Scorecards For Each Account


Userlevel 4
I would really appreciate the ability to have multiple 2.0 scorecards running for each account.

My use case:

I have my customer health scorecard, which is keeping track of things like CSM sentiment, NPS score, Support tickets, etc.

I also want to have a scorecard to breakdown our customer's usage into each of it's features. We have different features that customer will pay differently for, and we want to make sure that customers are using the features they're paying for. The features fall into three categories, Core, Premium and Pro. I want to have an rolled-up score for each of those categories as well as an overall score for all the features.

Currently, I need to have both of these scorecards merged together on one scorecard. This causes problems for a few reasons:
  1. The scorecard is very large and hard to read. Even with each of the three Features tiers grouped together, I can't put those groups into a "features" group on their own because scorecards doesn't support nested groups
  2. Using the groups, I can roll up each tier into a tier score (A core score, a premium score, etc.) but I cannot roll them all into an Overall score. I worked around this by creating a bionic rule to calculate the Overall score myself, but all I can do is average the three tiers together. All the measures have specific weights assigned to them, and when I just average out the scores, it doesn't rollup to be a true reflection of churn risk. 
These issues could be solved if I was able to create two 2.0 scorecards that could both be kept updated for each account. Alternatively, the ability to create nested groups would solve both of these problems as well. I know there is an issue where you cannot move a measure into a group after it's been established though, so I would also need the ability to do that so that I can keep all the historical data gathered so far. 

These ideas would greatly improve my experience with Gainsight as a whole, and would make mine, and our CSMs lives much easier in the future. 

22 replies

Userlevel 6
Hi Dallis,

Thanks for sharing this use case. We will prioritize this based on similar use cases we hear from customers for the same.

THanks
Abhishek S
++ To this request

We have multiple customer-types, lifecycle stages, product features, and other initiatives where we'd want to track several data points that roll up to an overall health score. Because we're limited to one active scorecard per customer, we're unable to do this.
Userlevel 7
Badge
Hi Teena,

Scorecards 2.0 does support multiple scorecard configurations that you can specify using logic rules which scorecard should be used for each customer based on customer type, lifecycle stages, product features, etc. 

Check out this feature explained here: https://support.gainsight.com/Product_Documentation/Scorecards_(1.0_and_2.0)/Admin_Configuration/Con...

This multiple scorecard functionality also operates dynamically so as a customer transitions from one lifecycle stage to another, the scorecards change on their own. It's a pretty powerful feature!
Hi Dan, and thank you for the feedback. While I understand we can have multiple scorecards exist at once, we cannot have multiple active scorecards on the same customer -- which is where our issue is.
Userlevel 6
Hi Teena,

Thanks a lot for sharing this. A couple of questions I had on the same:

 - How many measures do you want to track per account? Is there any specific reason you want them to be captured in 2 separate scorecards over a single one (with maybe each set of measures under a group)? (Is it more about the UX, where consuming the scores becomes difficult / any other reason?)

- Lets say you can have 2 active scorecards for an account, there would be 2 overall scores for an account. Which one would you consider as the actual score of that account? (Or what might be the ideal way it should work for your use case)

Regards
Hi Aditya,

We're still playing around and learning how many measures we want to track (no more than a dozen), but if we had multiple scorecards, we'd want to track ~twice as many. 

As far as the primary health score card, the one that's applied to our users that are "live"; this is more about their overall health, politics, how they feel about the product, are they meeting expectations around activations and engagement, etc (we're utilizing groups)...

In tandem with that, we'd like to track their instance health in a much more granular way, since we have 3 different user types to our single customer. 

Of course, we "could" do this on the same scorecard, but we look at this information in different ways. In addition to that, while there are groups on scorecards, it's too cluttered, too messy. We want our team to see very clearly what they're looking at. 

If we had 2 actives scorecards on the account, we would have a primary health one (this represents the relationship with the school, having ~8-12 measures and groups) and a secondary card that represents their instance health (data, granular engagement, feature usage, etc). 

This would also align better w/our team structure, where there are two account manager types on a single account (University partnership manager, who is more strategic and interacts with key stakeholders, and a university success manager, who is more focused on day-to-day operations)

Thanks,
Teena
Userlevel 6
Got it...thanks for sharing this Teena. One question, so these would be like 2 independent scorecards (i.e the overall score of the primary health scorecard would be dependent only its measures & similarly, the instance health measures roll up to the secondary scorecard) 
Userlevel 2
Hi Dan,

We would also need to have multiple active scorecards on the same customer. I have continuous sets of KPIs, some from a business perspective, some from a tactical one and so on and it would really be useful to have this feature.
The possibility of having different scorecards by stage or any other kind of rule is only a partial solution unfortunately.
Thank you.
Userlevel 6
Hi Manuel,

Would having multiple groups within one scorecard work for you? (i.e a group for all the business measures, a group for the tactical ones etc.)
Userlevel 2
Hi Aditya,

Not really. I've done several groups already but it is more a workaround and becomes difficult to read. 
Is it possible at least to have a link on each measure/KPI to the detailed view of that measure/KPI?
Thanks.
Userlevel 6
Hi Manuel,

What does the detail view consist of? Is it a description of the measure (i.e something similar to the help text)
Userlevel 2
Hi,

No, it's not like the help text. It should point for instance to a section of the Customer 360 where that KPI is calculated/detailed. For instance Usage would point to the licenses overview on all type of products.

Thanks.
Userlevel 6
Got it. In the example you mentioned - the license overview is a section on 360? Or an external document?
Would having the description of measures show up when the user hovers over the measure name help? (If you are using rules to automatically populate the scores - would populating the link in the measure comments might be a viable workaround?)
Userlevel 6
Badge +1
+1, is this still being considered? To account for multiple internal teams and stakeholders, we've resorted to creating a scorecard with 30+ metrics and grouping based on type of view. This works but isn't ideal since it makes the scorecard view very cluttered.

Additionally, there are instances where we would like to have sub scorecards that use separate scoring frameworks i.e. RYG vs 0-100. This is not possible since you can only have one active scorecard at a time.

Userlevel 7
Badge +1
Definitely +1 on this. Was surprised to learn this is a limitation in Gainsight while I was trying to create a separate scorecard that applied to customers only licensing a certain product only to find that because they already met the default scorecard criteria, the Set Score 2.0 actions weren't working. We should be able to configure what feeds into an overall score as well.

Userlevel 1
+1 here. I'm wondering if there's been any updates on this? Definitely surprised this isn't available. Even just being able to set a second scorecard and then report on it would be enough for us.

Userlevel 1
+1 on this. I went to configure a secondary scorecard based around client engagement metrics, and instead of being able to create multiple scorecards, assign to multiple to clients, and click through multiple tabs to see our general scorecard and engagement metrics scorecard, I'm learning we will need to discontinue the use of our standard health scorecard to track a a more granular engagement score for accounts. We are setting up the engagement scorecard to serve only our highest strategic account tier. We don't want to disable the current score (and disregard the investement we made to get this up and running) to create a new measure for these accounts that applies to different stakeholders at our company. This may lead us to the alternative to create an engagement scorecard in our Buisiness Intelligence platform, which diminishes the value of Gainsight and is something we were trying to avoid. When switching scorecards would you lose all history for the account score if you went back and forth? What other issues would this cause? Having only one active scorecard is an inflexible design and not meeting our needs. Please advise.

Userlevel 3
Badge
+1 to this!

Has anyone identified any workarounds for this? In my case, leadership is asking for two different Scorecards for each account, with some overlapping measures. At the very least rule actions should be able to push values into all configured Scorecards 2.0, regardless if they are the 'active' one or not. That way we could display a CSM Scorecard that the CSM may be in interested in but also have Exec Scorecard that Execs may be more interested in.

I'm thinking the only current workaround would be to use measurement groups. Thoughts?

Userlevel 7
Badge
Hi Shane,

In your use case it sounds like using groups (and some groups at zero weight) would be the solution.

Interestingly enough, this is how we do it internally at Gainsight on our own instance of Gainsight.

Userlevel 1
The overlapping measures would still be an issue. As far as I can tell you cannot add the same measure to multiple groups.

You would have to duplicate the overlapping measures with different names and then double-up on any rule actions setting these new duplicated measures. Doable, but potentially a lot of work.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of zero weight groups. They muddy up the Scorecard and can make the "why" behind the health score more difficult to interpret for non-CSMs. Having multiple scorecards is a much more straightforward solution.

This is exactly what I am looking for as well. A primary 'Health Score' and a secondary 'Usage Score' based on the products that the Customer is paying for & using, vs. paying for but not using. I'd love to see these as selectable views on the Scorecard tab of the C360 (like multiple reports/views for Contacts etc.). The CSM could then toggle through to the desired scorecard as needed.

Userlevel 7
Badge +1

Hi Shane,

In your use case it sounds like using groups (and some groups at zero weight) would be the solution.

Interestingly enough, this is how we do it internally at Gainsight on our own instance of Gainsight.
 

Just had another customer ask about this feature request and felt compelled to point out that our recent enhancement of being able to calculate weights at the group level in addition to the account level makes @dan_ahrens’ proposed solution even better. 

 

You no longer have to set the individual measures to zero weight - i.e. you can have a group that you don’t want affecting the overall score set to zero while having the four measures that roll up to that group, such as Measure A - 50%, Measure B - 25%, Measure C - 25%, Measure D - 0%, and it will roll up to that group with an actual score per your schema. It just won’t contribute to the overall score. Previous to this enhancement, measures A, B, C, and D would’ve all had to be set at 0% just like the group.

 

Reply