Right now I can use negative statements to say a property value "does not have X" "is not X" or is empty. However this falls apart a bit when we start working with associated objects in workflows.
For example, I want to enroll a company into my workflow if they have not had a closed won deal in the past 12 months, off the top of my head I might build a filter like this that says bring me in anyone who has had a deal close in the past 12 months and that deal has not been closed won:
However, if a company in my account had a deal 4 months ago that was closed lost, and a day 2 months ago that was closed won, they would still enroll in this workflow because they are still associated with a deal that is not closed won within the past 12 months.
There are two, very messy workarounds for this:
1. Use association labels for "open" deals, or "won"/"lost" deals, to target these deals specifically in the workflow criteria.
2. Just create a list, I can create a list of all companies who have closed won deals in the last 12 months and just set my enrollment criteria to be "company is not on this list".
2 works perfectly to be honest but introduces another asset to be mantained and considered when trying to keep a CRM clean. Using lists as workflow enrolment criteria is unwieldy and will almost always become an unscalable mess in the long run.
Can we just have an associated object filter for "is NOT associated to an object with this criteria" is seems like a huge oversight that has cause some absolute stresses trying to think through the double negatives and filter criteria tbh.
...read more