Topics started by Ben Snyders

5 Posts

Ben Snyders
Ben SnydersObserver

Addition of data associated with SitesDiscussion ongoing

Sites use can be applied in many different ways, for our use case sites mean a location.Our locations have a range of different information that if available to be linked to each site could either be:Available to users that have direct or inherited membership  Available to the platform features to leverage  Just keep in mind at times there could be times when both will need itWe should be able to define what fields make sense for either user, platform or both as it will be unique for each organisation.User facingThe aim of user facing data is to allow access to information that intends to make the user’s day a little bit easier buy having all the info about their area of responsibility in one location. There is quite a list, but some examples of this information could be:An address - Navigate to the location by tapping Phone number - Network Manager could tap the site details page and call from tapping What direct site members are there and what roles they have (role idea post to follo

8
TMcG
1 month ago
Ben Snyders
Ben SnydersObserver

Ability to define rolesNot planned

An opportunity that I see for the SC platform is a more robust role feature.There are groups, but currently feel that groups are a bit confused about their place in the platform at times and can lead to a large admin burden dependant on the organisation size.What could roles offer:Define a role types that exist in your organisation Associate data access to each role Associate permissions for each role Associate what sites have each roleThere would be the ability to then link users to roles at a relevant sites and potential flow on effects:Inspections completed could be owned by roles, scheduled inspections started would not be locked by a user as the role would own it Actions and schedules could be assigned to roles, instead of hoping to pick the right individual or group from a long list - you could just select “Manager (of this site)” and anyone is that relevant role would get the assignment. If the people in the role changes, all the templates, inspections, permissions, actions and

8
jackihann
SafetyCulture Crew
11 months ago
Ben Snyders
Ben SnydersObserver

Review notifications engine to avoid relevancy lossNew

Can we consider the review of how notifications are handled within the platform.Some exampled how currently there is notification overload potential as a result of:Triggered notifications from responses (if multiple logics are for the same individual or group) all separate notifications. Schedules that start the same time - all separate notifications Actions assigned to the same person in bulk - all separate notifications If you create a heads up: Notification that there is one Reminder that you haven’t looked at it If the creator decides to manually remind you on the side - another one If this is all happening at once you can even hit a limit to the amount of notifications received and it is silenced for the remainder of the day by the platform. This could lead to the potential of something important being missed for the rest of the day.There are some potential ideas that come to my mind about how this could be improved (Urgent vs. summary delivery options) - but interested in the c

2
Corey
Helper
1 year ago
Ben Snyders
Ben SnydersObserver

Remove user ownership from inspectionsNew

At the moment, inspections are owned by individual users.The challenges that this creates are:Data permissions issue - user is in a role today that should have this information and  tomorrow they are not, however, they will still have access to the inspections they conducted whilst in the role that should have had permissions to see this. Data reporting - There is no way to easily report on how different business units are performing inspection wise. If you are trying to report on programs, use groups you might say. These are out of the question as if an individual moves from one business unit group to another, they will take the inspections they own historically between the groups reporting wise.Maybe we remove user ownership from inspections and make it role based - see more info on roles within platform here.

2
Corey
Helper
1 year ago
Ben Snyders
Ben SnydersObserver

Adjust automations to not have the user named from SafetyCulture Integration BuilderNew

Within the SafetyCulture Integration Builder, if I have setup automations via an API token anything that results within platform will name the action as coming from me.ExampleThis is a problem on two fronts:Everyone in my org thinks I am actually creating all this stuff - so they contact me… but really it is an automated workflow that I have created based on our business requirements I get all the notifications for the stuff I have created via the workflows, so if I ever have to know if something is relevant to me I have disengaged from notifications all together from SCIt would be great if we could have any automations created via the builder not name the user, but have a title that is more generic an example but not precious of “Automated workflow” - Created by automated workflow. Also don’t give me the notifications please! Hope that makes sense, if you have any questions reply and can get  you more information.

1
Austin Turner
SafetyCulture Crew
1 year ago
Terms & ConditionsCookie settings