To organise our digital products, we are using User Groups.
We defined several sub-types :
- Jobs / user Roles
- Organisation (domain branch)
- Group of products (teams under Organisation)
In a table view of the "Digital Product" inventory, I would like to have 2 separate columns : one with the Organisation, and one with the Group of Products.
Currently, I didn't find how to do it but only have column "User Groups" with all subtypes mixted.
Is there a possibilty to have the same functionality as for the subscribers : to select which sub-type in a separate column?
Otherwise, sould I modify the meta-model to add new filed : one for the organization, one for group of product
(but always linked to the user groups) ?
Thanks for your help
Gauthier
Best answer by Thomas Schreiner
Hi @Gauthier,
Thanks, this explains the problem very well.
The main issue is that there is just one relation type for different semantical relations (DP to GoP, DP to Jobs/User Role).
I can see various solutions, each with a different set of advantages and disadvantages:
Using 2 relation types instead of one. With this approach, you extend the meta model by another relation between Application and UserGroup, and you split up all relations accordingly. Like relApplicationToGroupOfProducts and relApplicationToJobsUserRole, if that makes sense.
Moving one of the two structures into Tags or SingleSelect / MultiSelect fields. This will make reporting a bit „different“ from how it is today, but depending on your use cases it might still work.
Moving one of the two structures into a separate fact sheet type: This will make all relations more explicit and solve the problem with contradicting semantics, but it will increase the complexity of your workspace.
There might be more solutions, but this could be enough to start moving in the right direction.
I will in get in touch via direct message regarding the invitation.
How are you assigning a Digital Product to its Group of Products and to its Organization? Are you using a relation, and if so, which one?
If you do it via a relation, you need to show that relation in the table view with the Eye symbol. But honestly I am not sure if you selected the right modeling approach here. Happy to discuss - this exact question will also be a key topic in our next Customer Community meeting (Meta Model v4 - How to model Products and Organizations within the new Meta Model?)
Thanks a lot for your answer. Yes I would be interested by the next Customer Community meeting, if I’m available (I’m on holidays the next 2 weeks).
To answer your question. We have define several subtype of “User groups” :
Jobs / user Roles : imported from HR referential, to have the “official” list of jobs
Organisation : describe the Decathlon Domains (kind of Business Units) : Supply chain, Finance, Human Resources, …
Group of Products : are childs of Organisation ; describe product teams
Country
Each digital product (fact sheet application in our context, as we began before meta model V4) has User Groups relations , that are a mix of the previous subtypes.
But by that way, in a table view I’m not able to separate the subtype in differents columns :
If there’s a better way to modelize, I will be very happy to have your recommendation.
The main issue is that there is just one relation type for different semantical relations (DP to GoP, DP to Jobs/User Role).
I can see various solutions, each with a different set of advantages and disadvantages:
Using 2 relation types instead of one. With this approach, you extend the meta model by another relation between Application and UserGroup, and you split up all relations accordingly. Like relApplicationToGroupOfProducts and relApplicationToJobsUserRole, if that makes sense.
Moving one of the two structures into Tags or SingleSelect / MultiSelect fields. This will make reporting a bit „different“ from how it is today, but depending on your use cases it might still work.
Moving one of the two structures into a separate fact sheet type: This will make all relations more explicit and solve the problem with contradicting semantics, but it will increase the complexity of your workspace.
There might be more solutions, but this could be enough to start moving in the right direction.
I will in get in touch via direct message regarding the invitation.
Maybe I didn’t explain it well enough - written communication is hard 😅
If you create a new relation type, it will be empty from the beginning. You can either manually move all GroupOfProducts relations (or JobsUserRole) to the new relation type by deleting them and re-creating them in the section for the new relation, or you can do it via a script. If you like, we can have a quick 1:1 meeting and I show you how I would do it myself. I will be out-of-office until August 21st, so we could talk after that, if that works for you.
How are you assigning a Digital Product to its Group of Products and to its Organization? Are you using a relation, and if so, which one?
If you do it via a relation, you need to show that relation in the table view with the Eye symbol. But honestly I am not sure if you selected the right modeling approach here. Happy to discuss - this exact question will also be a key topic in our next Customer Community meeting (Meta Model v4 - How to model Products and Organizations within the new Meta Model?)
If you like, I can send you an invitation.
Hi @Thomas Schreiner ,
Could you please, send me this invitation (next Customer Community meeting (Meta Model v4 - How to model Products and Organizations within the new Meta Model?))?
