Rules Engine: Trigger new CTA based on repeat triggers of previous CTA

Related products: CS Rules & Permissions

Looking for the ability to have a rule look for "three strikes" and then trigger a new CTA.





If I have a Risk CTA that gets triggered 3 times for a customer in a 6 month period, I would like to trigger a new Risk CTA that identifies the cumulative CTA pattern and suggests a new set of actions.





I expect feedback to probably be "you can create a rule that widens the scope of the previous CTA criteria, and trigger the new CTA that way."  But the rule criteria for the prior CTA in mind is a bit complicated.  The prior CTA will trigger if one of more than one set of criteria is met.





Is it possible to do something like:





If "RISK CTA 1" created >= 3 times in Last 180 days then Create "RISK CTA 2"?





Please forgive me if I am missing something obvious.
+1. We have been talking about something similar. Our idea was if we've sent the same risk CTA to the CSM "x" times, trigger a new risk CTA for the CSM Manager.
Like minds!  
This question intrigued me and it could be a pretty common use case for allowing 'semi-automation' of the manager activities, so I worked up a quick example:





For this example, I'm checking to see how many CTAs a CSM has had that had "EBR" in the title. I'm looking at the last 90 days and I've created an aggregation on the Call to Action name











This gives me a preview where I get a rolled up number of times a CTA with "EBR" in the title was created in the past 90 days (by account).











And then in the Setup Action, I can use this aggregation to create a new CTA where the criteria is looking for a threshold number against that aggregation.











This will create a new CTA only for customer accounts where 2 or more CTAs with "EBR" in the title were created in the past 90 days. 





Pretty cool, huh? 🙂
Awesome, Dan!!! I will definitely have to try this out!
YES.  Dan this is awesome!  I had a feeling there was some kinda way, and I didn't even think to consider aggregation on the name.  This is why I love the community. So many bright minds!  Thank you!