Hi All,
I'm gathering feedback on a Tessitura Analytics roadmap item. The custom fields for Orders, Contributions, and Plans are already available in Analytics. However, they appear in Analytics with field names "Custom 01", "Custom 02", etc. and don't currently respect the characteristics of the field data types as configured in Tessitura. The reasons for this come down to control group security. It is a feature of Tessitura that the first custom field on an Order can be configured as a date value for one control group (Birthdate let's say), and a drop down list of descriptive text values for another control group (Favorite Ice Cream maybe), each appearing with the configured custom field name (description) on the order processing screen. Tessitura also allows us to change what currently IS the first custom field - I no longer wish to track ice creams and would like instead to start tracking a household child-count, as a number - without losing the historical custom field data. Ice creams would still technically be reportable for the orders that have that data stored against them.
I'd like for Analytics to support displaying the name of the custom field (rather than "Custom 01"), and its data type, as configured in Tessitura. There is one issue that may be a non-starter however: a limitation in Sisense that prevents hiding the custom field names and data types of one control group from another (table and column level data security is not currently supported). The data stored IN those fields would NOT be visible across control groups (this can be secured using the same row-level data security already in place in Tessitura Analytics). It's this issue that one organization, with their own set of configured custom order fields (or without any), would see that Birthdate, Favorite Ice Cream, and a Household Child Count are being collected by one or more other members in that Tessitura instance.
Again, members would not see the data stored in these fields across control groups, but would see the field names and have visibility into the types of custom data being collected and stored. Please consider this question from a Contributions and Plans perspective as well.
How important is it that consortium members not see that other members are... collecting custom data, and the descriptive names of that custom data, when weighed against having those descriptive field names and explicit data types (eg. dates and numerics) in Tessitura Analytics?
Thanks in advance.
Chris Wallingford Product Owner Tessitura Network office: +1 888.643.5778 x553 chris.wallingford@tessituranetwork.com
Hi Chris!
Welcome to the group, and thank you for the question here.
From my perspective as Consortium Manager here in Tulsa, I think that there are enough instances in the database where the names of fields can't be suppressed between organizations that it's just become "the way things are" for our people. In particular, the majority of TNEW System Tables can't be locked down based on user group access, so we actually use it as an opportunity for our organizations to see how other people have set things up and be able to see some of the mechanisms behind that when they're building their own uses.
As long as the actual data behind the Custom fields were locked down to the specific control group, I can't see an issue with the fields being visible across the board. We have two or three-letter prefixes for all of our member organizations right now, so we would just use those as part of the naming convention and that would guide people as to whether or not a field will show data for them. In that scenario, the only potential "hang-up" would be that what is collected by each organization is visible to others in terms of strategy, but again, that's something that happens already in the application spaces where we can't hide control-grouped elements.
Thank you,
Brian
I would like to echo Brian's sentiments here. Our group is quite used to seeing fields (but not data) that belong to the other organizations, we adopted widespread use of org prefixes to understand which fields are appropriate to use, and they each have confidentiality agreements in place, as well. I do have a new Master Licensee (well, new last year) and I'd like to ask that Executive whether she has any objections. Those of us who were here in the beginning are used to doing things one way and I like the fresh perspective of someone who doesn't have that conditioning. I'll let you know what she says (or whether she wants to take it to the Advisory Committee to discuss.)
P.S. We're a small group of small groups, though, and I can imagine this might be much more sensitive in a different market. Vive la Kalamazoo, I guess.
On Jun 9, 2020, at 1:35 PM, Mindee Waltz <bounce-mindeewaltz7928@tessituranetwork.com> wrote:
<Tessitura_2D00_Network_2D00_logo_5F00_1500x421-png_2D00_150x42-png> Update from Tessitura Network <4UABSH9QMI64-jpg_2D00_70x70x2-jpg> Mindee Waltz I would like to echo Brian's sentiments here. Our group is quite used to seeing fields (but not data) that belong to the other organizations, we adopted widespread use of org prefixes to understand which fields are appropriate to use, and they each have confidentiality agreements in place, as well. I do have a new Master Licensee (well, new last year) and I'd like to ask that Executive whether she has any objections. Those of us who were here in the beginning are used to doing things one way and I like the fresh perspective of someone who doesn't have that conditioning. I'll let you know what she says (or whether she wants to take it to the Advisory Committee to discuss.) View online You received this notification because you subscribed to the forum. To unsubscribe from only this thread, go here. Flag this post as spam/abuse.
View online
You received this notification because you subscribed to the forum. To unsubscribe from only this thread, go here.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
Hi Chris,
I sent this out to our user group and so far there are no objections to this.
Thanks,
David
Hi Chris and everyone,
I haven't consulted our members but also agree with Brian. A large proportion of our members was involved when the consortium data structure was set up in joint training and configuration sessions so there has been shared information on field names from the start. Where useful, we also try to work with common approaches across all member organisations to keep the platform as streamlined as possible, so it might have some benefits in that context.
cheers
Nancy
Hi Chris: was there ever any movement on this? We have custom fields we'd love to be able to pull into Analytics.
Hi Gawain,
This is on the docket for v16 or asap after.