LEAP Session Q&A: Campaign Management
Whether over the years, or venturing into for the first time, working with campaigns with Workfront is an important endeavor. My colleague, @Tyler Holt‚ , and I, explore the ways to work with campaigns in Workfront and where to exploit various Workfront components, the projects vs. tasks debate, and methods for approaching campaign creative asset execution and structure, in our Virtual LEAP 2020 presentation where you can watch here.
We’re happy to take your questions you may have from the presentation, and my question to you if you would like to share is, what method or aspect of working with campaigns in Workfront most effective, and why?
Topics help categorize Community content and increase your ability to discover relevant content.
Hey there! I just watched this session a second time, and I am interested in better understanding option 5, where you are using a Project as the master, and then creating sub projects from there. The demo you showed in the last few minutes of this session went way too fast for me to follow. Is there a video that walks through this scenario at a normal pace, especially explaining the cross predecessors? I have an Open Enrollment campaign - last year we had 44 projects under this campaign, which we need for reporting those 44 projects as "deliverables" for our HR client. But this is very time consuming. It seems like there would be a better way to see all the deliverables and their interconnectivity than how I am doing this (but I do know reviewing many deliverables within one project can get confusing). As we are doing it, I can view all the 44 projects under a campaign (what we call programs), and so if I will not gain any benefit by using this cross project predecessor sub-project method, then I will leave it. I would just like to know the benefits. Does it create better reporting? Are your sub projects really simple with few tasks (our projects are typically milestone and task heavy).
Hi Debbie! The sub-project method is very useful for “task heavy” deliverables as you describe, or where separate teams execute on specific channel deliverables. It sounds like you are doing much of that already if you are placing your deliverable projects (i.e., the “sub-projects”) under a campaign program. The cross-project predecessors as I describe it is what gives you the “linkage” between a sub-project and a master project schedule. The master project schedule gives you the birds-eye view of your overall campaign schedule with tasks as deliverables in your master project schedule, but without the detail, i.e., there are only “stub/placeholder" tasks in the master project schedule. The deliverable detail is all contained in the respective sub-projects, and the cross-project predecessors provide the “glue” or link to the sub-project and back to the “stub/placeholder" tasks in the master project schedule.
The cross-project predecessor themselves do not offer any additional reporting benefit, but the structure of a campaign program, master project schedule, and sub-project deliverables, collectively, is what provides robust reporting with this model.
Hope this helps / clarifies!
Thank you for your reply! Is it possible you could share a report based off this setup? I'd like to see what filters are used to create the report, and how it all comes together on that report, if possible.