La fonction de suggestion automatique permet d'affiner rapidement votre recherche en suggérant des correspondances possibles au fur et à mesure de la frappe.
Allow users to be 'primary team member' of more than one team
Currently, a user can be a 'primary' member of only one team. The user can be added to other teams as an 'additional team member', but many team features are unavailable to these 'additional' users (see list of restrictions below).
This is problematic and causing us considerable pain because some users need full access to multiple teams, e.g. an individual who is multi-role, or management/supervisory staff who need to monitor what goes on in the team. This is particularly true in smaller businesses. The one primary team restriction seems unjustifiable .
These users will not be included in any team reports, routing rules (e.g., conversation routing rules), team notifications (e.g., form submission email notifications to a team), or workflow rotation actions. They will also not be able to view any custom records views set up for the team.
The solution is to allow users to be primary members of multiple teams.
We need customization where we can group members in primary teams and additional cohorts. On which Reporting can be done too.
Scenario: Let;s say we have 50 sales rep joining us, and they will be divided across different teams & regions. If we need to compare their performance with old or experienced sales rep on different metrics, it will be very insightful.
I'm working with a client where the visibility of Companies and Contacts is based on a matrix of products and regions. They're a small organisation with only 10+ sales users, so we can't warrant going up to Enterprise just yet for more flexbliity around team reporting. We need a Territory Management capability, where we can assign visiblity of records to a Territory or selection of products and then allow visibility of those records to the user. It's not suffiient to only have one primary Team, especially where you can't assign ownership of a Company or Contact to a Team directly (but rather to a Team indirectly through the Team of the record owner). This is a feature which should be included in Sales Pro, since it's quite common to have cross-functional teams in SMEs.
Upvoting this. The current setup of Additional Team Members defeats the purpose of Teams. If a user is assigned to multiple teams, they should be able to be treated as full team members. We have 6 branches (or Teams in HubSpot) but we have some salespeople who work at multiple branches. They should be able to be looped into round-robin meeting assignments, automation, workflow rotation, etc. just like a primary member of that team. This is a crucial function that we need for our business.
This is very important. It would give the "teams" function so much more flexibility, especially in Service Hub. It is common for a support member to be part of numerous teams, needing access to list views, etc which are currently not allowed within sub teams.
I agree. We are implementing Service Tickets and I need to be able to send internal emails to teams as opposed to users for making management easier, however users can belong to multiple teams - though this is impossible currently to define in HubSpot.
Teams could be a very flexible solution to the classic problem of grouping. However in its current implementation it is broken. A user should be able to belong to multiple groups. For access - it is simple - allow rights are OR-ed, deny rights (if applicable) are AND-ed. No conflict.
All team members, regardless if they are primary or secondary team members should be included in the reporting tool. There are many times when a Deal Owner may play a fundamental part in two different teams, and should therefore not be excluded in the reporting for that team.
At the moment, it is a limitation that almost defeats the purpose of having teams. It would be brilliant to see in a future product rollout 🙂
Upvoted. We have users managing several teams, yet, unless I add them separately to each and every workflow, they can only receive the internal notifications for their one primary team.
This one certainly has my vote! From a sales management perspective, there is no point in the present restrictions on team membership in HubSpot if my multi-regional team isn't able to function fully for each area under their territory.
I agree, we must have same right into a team whatever the primary and additionnal. To have "tree organisation", we should be able to define a manager for each user but not using team.
This is really well written and is obviously a problem for many, including myself. I'm not sure about your solution, though. Admins have the option to create default settings based on team membership. This would create a conflict if a user was a primary member of more than one team.
I would suggest adding the option to include secondary members when possible. For example, when setting up a notification via workflow, there are three options for recipients: team, user, or existing owner. We could have a fourth option (ex. team + secondary members) or a checkbox to include secondary members.
Adding this functionality is critical to on- and offboarding procedures for my company. We would use teams if we had the option to include secondary users in our workflows, but teams are currently worthless for our use case.
Yes, this is absolutely ruining our ability to use Teams alonside other important features.
In real life, we have a Customer Success team, divided into two sub-teams of people who specialize in supporting two of our main software tools. But some people are cross-trained in both, and we have additional software tools in which everyone is fully trained and supports on the side. So, we thought it would work perfectly to set up Specialty Team 1 and Specialty Team 2 as the primary teams for our users, then add them to another team called Customer Success as additional users. That way, we could have workflows that auto-assign things to Specialty Team 1 when that specialty is needed, and other workflows that assign to anyone in Customer Success when the particular specialty is less important/not needed. (Esp. with chat, we often want a chat to get assigned to whomever's online, regardless, and s/he can either handle the whole conversation or collect initial info before handing off to the more specialized teammate, or whatever.)
Unfortunately, that's not how it works at all. When we set it up that way, we couldn't assign anything to Customer Success because everyone was on Customer Success as additional users! So, we reversed it to make CS the primary team and the specialties the additional teams. It's not much better, because now for things where the specialty is critical, we can't assign to the specialty team, because they are additional users. So, we just manually select every user for every workflow... and then, when someone leaves the company, we are picking through dozens of workflows trying to make sure we've removed him/her from everything. And usually failing and having to reassign stuff that gets assigned to the inactive user.... So, the teams are not helping us at all, simply because of the primary/additional distinction, although they would be extremely helpful without that distinction.
We've been surviving okay this way for a while though. What brought me to this page today is the fact that we are trying to switch from Calendly to using HubSpot Meetings. I went to try setting up a round-robin scheduling page for one of our specialty teams. Unfortunately, they don't show up as options to add. Meaning, I can't see a way to add the team as a whole, nor can I see any of the individual users who are additional users on that team. Again, they are set up with Customer Success as their primary team, and additional users on the specialty team. I can see other members of Customer Success, but not these members who also have an additional team. It makes no sense to me, and it's a roadblock. We'll have to either ditch the whole idea of teams and just have everyone be on one team (not that teams were doing much for us anyway up to this point), or we have to stick with Calendly.
Sorry for writing Moby Dick the Sequel here, but I hope the HubSpot team sees this and understands why this is such a problem. Teams would work great for us if they worked like a Venn diagram, where users could simply be members of one team, another, or both, without the primary/additional distinction.
EDIT: I was mistaken about the Meetings issue being related to Teams. The users all showed up once they connected their calendars. But, the workflow and chatflow problems still stand and essentially cancel out the usefulness of teams altogether.
Hi, we have the same issue. We need the possibility to add several users into two teams as primaries. And we may also want to change the affiliation afterwards. This is a really important functionality and I have no idea why you can edit all the properties, but the team affiliation is only displayed but cannot be changed. I hope there will be a solution for it soon.
This function is vital to our business. We have team members that work in sales of multiple but separate product lines. They need access to the tasks that a primary group member would have access to on both teams.
This is so necessary! I rely on the HubSpot Team property for reporting and narrowing our communication lists by their owner's region (EMEA, APAC, and US) but I have sales users who work contacts across multiple teams. If they are the owner, then that contact's "Team" has to be the sales user's designated "Primary Team." What is the point of adding additional teams if their contacts can't be sorted appropriately? Please make the HubSpot team editable based on the Team's Primary and Additional Users.
We are trying to use "Teams" to create team views for deal properties as a workaround for maxing out the 30 property sections in the organization-wide view. The issue is that only primary members of the team can view a team view, and additional users cannot, which derails this workaround for us. The ability to assign multiple primary teams to members would solve this issue for us, or of course, increase the number of property sections allowed per view. 29 of the 30 are conditional, so we rarely have more than 3 or 4 sections showing on a deal at a time.
Pour ajouter un commentaire ici, vous devez être inscrit. Si vous êtes déjà inscrit, connectez-vous. Dans le cas contraire, inscrivez-vous puis connectez-vous.
