Status |
| ||||||
Owner | rommel.ngo jessica.wood AlainGasquet Yeng Sembrano Liz Enright Adriana Sung | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Contributors | rommel.ngo jessica.wood Yeng Sembrano AlainGasquet Liz Enright | ||||||
Approved | |||||||
Due date |
| ||||||
Decision |
| ||||||
On this page |
|
❓ Problem statement
We need to build a ‘do not engage’ / ‘Communication Blockout’ check-box with associated start and end dates and a reason picklist. (e.g. have been convicted of crimes). These people should still receive SAM and similar content but we do not want to engage them for events/programs for example.
💡 Research insights
In Speaking with Prospect Development we could have the following reasons
Vulnerable - (which would supersede our vulnerable checkbox)
Under Investigation - this would trigger a business process to review these periodically to ensure they are moved in or out of this flag
Requires Approval - this would be a higher level flag for people who have criminal histories, illegitimate revenue sources as an example. Instead of being super specific the thought process is something like this to capture and a business process that requires these people to be approved to be included in activities.
📊 Solution hypothesis
currently if someone is vulnerable example being if we have been notified they have dementia by their family and as such we don't want to solicit, but we still want to send them particular alumni communications. We would in the current practice mark them as do not solicit but this is not a flag that is explicitly followed by development team as there is a significant number of contacts that were marked as DNC to stop the phone programming contacting them that we do not know if it was us or them. This opens us up to inconsistent use of the same fields. By separating out actions decided by us eg don't engage with someone as they are under investigation this will also allow these fields to be reviewed and then removed based on dates or time frames, it also gives us an additional layer of protection, they contact us about something we can see that quickly and manage the situation accordingly, having to look through 10’s of campaigns buried in someone's contact record is not very user friendly which will also create barriers to people looking for it. We are also using alerts as a portfolio to flag these things like due diligence concern stand alone, these alerts only work at a one to one level, these flags do not stop someone from being pulled into lists as this is not a preference. I think we need to really build our own rigour and business rules to ensure we are consistent across the portfolio as we merge with other instances of salesforce.
🌈 Design options
OPTION A: New fields | OPTION B: Use Special Handling Campaigns | ||
---|---|---|---|
Overview | |||
Screenshot | |||
Benefits and risks |
|
| |
Criteria | Component | Need to create new component | Existing Components + new component to make it more usable |
Daniel (Architect) Endorsement | no data | Yes | |
✅ Follow up
Decision | Status | Next steps | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
💎 Source files
Type /link to add links to design files.