USER.ID Reporting for related Portfolio's Projects and Tasks

[TamBo64]

Looking to:

1. Tie people to Portfolios
2. Per our IT, our Active Directory does not work together somehow with an aspect of Workfront (or SSO) so there is no auto list of managers to staff within our Workfront environment (least not wholesale and up-to-date). And if there was I don't recall seeing a department or portfolio field that will tie the staff to the Portfolios.
4. Report out on Portfolio Projects to stakeholders (requesters/reviewers)
5. via USER.ID to see only those pertinent to them
6. would like to add to a dashboard that is pertinent with data pertinent to the person signed in
8. Report out on Project Tasks with specific task due dates to see only those pertinent to them
9. one report, multiple projects, one portfolio as pertains to signed in requester/reviewer; regardless who the task is assigned to

NOTE: The requester/reviewer is not assigned to any of our Project fields.

• Sponsor is our Campaign Manager
• Owner is our Project Manager
• Requester (from original request) is only sometimes the stakeholders, others it is the campaign manager - depending on who input
• Tasks - none of the tasks are assigned to stakeholders -- unless I go about adding a placeholder task for the individual and pull that way (but wondering if there is a better or easier way already that I haven't discovered)
• Other??

Thanks in advance.

[Doug_Den_Hoed__AtAppStore]

Hi Tammie,

Huh: that gun I holstered for Vic a couple of hours ago has a Silver Bullet in it, which I chambered a few weeks ago during an intriguing save-until-needed Proof Of Concept. Turns out today's the day:

• on a custom form attached to each Portfolio and Project of interest,
• add a User based type ahead custom parameter (e.g. "Stakeholders"), then

using that super-awesome, thank-you-@Josh Hardman functionality,

• type in the usernames of each such Stakeholder on each such Portfolio and Project, noting
• that under the hood, a list of GUIDs for those users is then stored in that Stakeholders parm, making it possible to then
• create a Portfolio report and a Project report filtered to Stakeholders Contains $$USER.ID,
• (optional) if the reports are for Requestor/Reviewers, consider granting Run As permissions (e.g. of a SysAdmin) on them,
• (optional) if the reports are best used on a dashboard, do so, then
• share the reports and/or dashboards (e.g. via public url, if that's appropriate), then
• test using various Log In As users, and
• if this hits the mark, enjoy

Regards,

Doug

[TamBo64]

Wow, thanks Doug! Look forward to trying this out soon.

Will the User type ahead field allow selection/input of more than one Stakeholder or will I need to repeat the field multiple times on the custom form? Is there a max or best practice?

Tammie

[Doug_Den_Hoed__AtAppStore]

You're welcome, Tammie: and yes. It is the fact that you can use this technique in a multiple-user manner that makes the silver so shiny. In effect, type ahead allows you to "invent" relationships within Workfront that would otherwise be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Regards, Doug Doug Den Hoed - AtAppStore

[Doug_Den_Hoed__AtAppStore]

Ehm...my apologies folks: I was mistaken.

In my above Silver Bullet post, I incorrectly reported that the new typeahead could store more than a single entry in a given custom field (e.g. "Stakeholders"). Upon closer examination, only a single value can be entered at this time, and it is not stored as a GUID, but rather as an JSON object, which looks like this, when viewed through the API:

DE:Stakeholder: "{"objCode":"USER","name":"....Doug.... Den\u00A0Hoed","ID":"8aa64c9bdae12982be040007f01007de7"}",

Given that format, Workfront's calculation engine can neither inspect nor render the contents in a calculated parameter: although both {DE:Stakeholder} or Stakeholder are "acceptable" as formulas, their result is blank; and any attempts to use other keywords such as CONCAT (e.g. to perhaps append multiple such single entries into an "append-as-you-save" text box) register as invalid. I apologize for not researching this more thoroughly before posting, and in turn, getting some of your hopes up: @Pavlin Panayotov, @Tammie Bouchard, and @Erica Lorenzo in particular.

In penance, I am working on an alternative to solve this challenge of multiple Stakeholders (or Sponsors, etc.), and hope to update this thread with a solution soon: after I've thoroughly tested it.

Regards,

Doug

[Doug_Den_Hoed__AtAppStore]

Hi folks,

@Pavlin Panayotov came up with a practical approach to solve this one, so I've parked my investigation for now, and until there's a data model change, instead invite you to adopt ‚his technique if you need this kind of 1:many Stakeholder relationship.

Regards,

Doug