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:
- 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
- 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 ideas would greatly improve my experience with Gainsight as a whole, and would make mine, and our CSMs lives much easier in the future.
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
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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.)
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.
What does the detail view consist of? Is it a description of the measure (i.e something similar to the help text)
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.
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?)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I totally agree with this. The use case I have in mind here is that I’d like to have two different scorecards, one more specifically measuring their health in terms of likelihood to renew, but it would be great to have the option of creating an “Expansion” scorecard to measure opportunity for expansion. Those two metrics may share some measures (like NPS), but since you can’t have the same Measure twice in a scorecard, that wouldn’t work well here.