Ability to edit CTAs in the Rules Engine

Related products: CS Rules & Permissions

My customer recently came up with a use case for editing a CTA within the Rules Engine that I'd like to share. 





Right now, we can either create or close a CTA from the Rules Engine. What my customer would like to do is change a CTA's status, priority, etc. based on criteria. 





Example: For a medium-priority CTA that was fired off due to a drop in usage, the customer would like the ability to up that CTA's priority from medium to high for any CTA that fits the associated type and reason if the usage falls even further after the original CTA is fired off. 





This kind of example doesn't really fit our current Mass Edit functionality and isn't currently able to be automated from within the Rules Engine.





Happy to go into more detail if needed. Thanks!
Interesting idea. I'm guessing with the current capabilities you'd solve that business challenge by closing the medium CTA via a rule and opening a high CTA also via rule?
This should already be possible out of the box. CTA rules would automatically update the priority of existing CTAs of the same type and reason.
Can you explain how that would work? I thought because the Create CTA function was an upsert operation, it wouldn't be able to update the priority because a CTA of that type and reason already exists - therefore the Rules Engine would leave that CTA alone. Am I missing something?
Based on the identifiers used in the CTA action, CTAs are upserted (Type and Reason are default identifiers). If there is an existing CTA that matches the identifier, then it is updated.





While updating:




  1. Priority is updated if the new Priority is higher than the existing CTA's priority.

  2. Chatter/Comments are updated based on the "Post update to chatter and/or comments" flag.



  3. If existing CTA does not have a playbook and the new CTA is applying a playbook, then the playbook will be applied. 
Thanks, 


Sidhu


 
We would like to be able to update all CTAs that have at least 1 task completed to be "In Progress" rather than "New" so do this we either have to do a Mass Edit, which is a one-off, or use the Rules Engine and specify the type and reason in order to update the right CTAs, but we have more than 1 type and 1 reason in use.





If we use Rules Engine and "create CTA" it will update those CTAs that have the same type and reason as specified but will also create CTAs for accounts that do not have CTAs with that type/reason, which is not desired.




Hi John, this should be doable if you fetch only the Accounts and CTAs that are "New" and have at least one task complete, then "creating" the CTA based on that short list of Accounts and CTAs. As Sidhu noted, the create action is an upsert, so the status should be updated by a create action.




I have a related use case but the same request to modify CTAs in Rules engine. We use "Recurring" CTAs to save time, but when I report on my executive dashboard for "Open CTAs", each recurring child CTA is counted and "IsRecurring" is FALSE by design (only the first CTA has "IsRecurring" set to TRUE.





Okay, rolling up my sleeves I created a new field in the Call To Action object called "RecurringParent". I pull all CTAs with "IsRecurring" set to TRUE and then pulled all subsequent CTAs based on "Account", "Created By ID", "CTA Name", and "Created By Date" and planned to set my customer "RecurringParent" to True so I can filter these out of the CTA count.





But when my action for "Load to SFDC Object" is selected, my jaw dropped that I cannot update this custom field. I must solve this somehow and this is the most straight forward way to have a flag on the object.




I am trying to do this same thing, but for Objective CTAs where there is at least one objective marked as completed within the SP. Though, I noticed that the CTA reason is NULL. So if this is an identifier for the upsert function not to create a duplicate CTA, will it not work for this use case?

 

 


@spencer_engel are you possibly able to provide any help with my last comment please?