We'd like to be able to set the Regarding field to point to multiple clients and/or parties (e.g. attorneys,CPAs) for Appointments. This way it shows up in their record and we know that multiple parties were involved in this Appointment.
Otherwise we'd have to make required or optional parties, which doesn't work since that's more for internal scheduling purposes.
Comments
Dear Microsoft, I wonder why this was declined. The link you posted isn't working, there is no ticket like this. If I want to submit the same idea or upvote if it is already in the backlog, what do I need to do?
Category: Unified Experience: Search, navigation and performance
Thank you for your feedback. This is a great suggestion, and we will consider this in our roadmap.
Category: Unified Experience: Search, navigation and performance
This is a requirement for the Company I work for. Can we have an update on this subject please?
Category: Unified Experience: Search, navigation and performance
Please bump this. With Server-Side Sync automagically sending invitation e-mails to any "activity party" with an e-mail account in CRM, it is imperative that we have the ability to link activities to multiple customers, opportunities, projects, etc. Having had a look under the hood during data migrations, the internal activityparty server-side script/plugin seems to programmatically create an activityparty record for the regarding record lookup. So given that the regarding field is already connected to that particular script/plugin, and given that there is already an implementation model to generate activityparties from a lookup array with length > 1, it's hard understanding why the array length limitations cannot be lifted on the existing regarding lookup (best case, since legacy activity regarding record links would fall in the same relationship as multiple regarding records). The plumbing appears to be largely in place. Is this technically infeasible or just not high enough priority? I have not spoken with one single customer who likes the single record limitation on regarding. This would be a very nice win for Dynamics CRM customers. Knowing how server-side sync works for appointments, I have a strong suspicion someone is going to lose a multi-million dollar deal because their customer was accidentally copied by e-mail from Server Side Sync on internal notes placed on an activity that the customer was an "attendee" for.
Category: Unified Experience: Search, navigation and performance
Can I ask where we are with this development, Its been a massive problem since the inception of CRM, we are just moving from 2011 to 2013 and I am AMAZED this has still not been fixed. Can you provide us with some kind of idea when this will be rolled out as standard functionality please.
Category: Unified Experience: Search, navigation and performance
Very much wanted feature. Today one of my coworkers had a phone call with a contant. That single phone call solved 3 open service cases. My coworker became very confused how to document it. Since he couldn't set the phone call regarding three different cased he had to create three similar phone calls for the three cases. But that again messes up compliance as there were only one phone call made.
Category: Unified Experience: Search, navigation and performance
This is a huge problem in our company. Most Accounts are linked to multiple Portfolio's and there is often a need to link emails to the specific Portfolio's individually. The workaround we are currently using is to 'Set Regarding' to the first entity and then use Connections for the others. The problem is that any response or forwrad to the original tracked mail will only be tracked against the 'Set Regarding' entity, and not the others that have connections. We would like the 'Set Regarding' functionality to allow users to choose multiple entities to link/track against.
Category: Unified Experience: Search, navigation and performance
Venky Rajendran (administrator) on 2/8/2018 12:17:26 AM
Thank you for reaching out. Your suggestion seems to be a duplicate of the following suggestion:
http://crmideas.dynamics.com/ideas/dynamics-crm/1272484
Please add your valuable votes and comments to the suggestion above instead.
Regards,
Venky
PM, Microsoft