When creating an enrollment rule for Courses or Groups, Absorb only allows you to use Departments is "Is Only" or "And sub-departments of" logic. I would like to be able to exclude a department by setting it to "Department" "is not", and then select the department.
2
Low Probability of Delivery
Why is this a low probability of delivery? I regularly run into issues that require elaborate workarounds so this functionality would save time and reduce errors!
Absorb Admin - could you clue us in on this?
This would also help us greatly - Department is a great way to slice our data, but the way this enrollment rule is set up now offers us hardly any value.
This would help me so much with a current requirement to allow 718 departments to self enrol but not allow 1 department. Ive just spent 10 mins manually selecting the depts that are allowed which seems an old fashioned way of doing it
This would help us so much as currently we have to create long winded work arounds with groups.
Unlikely to implement... Another shining example of why Absorb isn't ready for prime time.
Now 96 votes, it really looks like a need... we have this option for City, location, name.... Would really be nice to have it with Departments as well.
Other option, if it's safer in terms of programming, would be to allow us to do a multiple selection of departments in the list of departments. Maybe with an option to select all, and the possibility to uncheck those we do not want.
I hope 87 votes is enough sufficent votes to reconsider!
My previous LMS (Cornerstone) allowed this functionality, not just for departments, but for every field. We used it all the time in an organisation with thousands of admins. I would argue the opposite of what Paul (admin) said below... having to put in 10+ rules to capture all other departments than there is of you that should receive an assignment has a higher risk of error than accidentally not including a department that you should have included. I agree it is required urgently, particularly when you consider organisations, such as mine, that have different languages and need to create the same 10+ departments PER language meaning there can be hundreds of languages! I'd end up having to add a ridiculous number of rules just to exlude a particular department.
This is a very needed feature. When creating courses for a large organization 2000+ it can take hours to create enrollments rules for a repartment or group that could be done in seconds if there was a exclusion option for department or group.
I'm desperately in need of this exact filtering. So often we have courses that are for very large groups less one job title, or less 1 dept. Trying to create a filter to include everyone except this small number of people is next to impossible. Would like Absorb to reconsider this request especially since there are so many votes for.
I have a department that has 19 sub-departments. At one point, we had our Interns in that department. Whenever I had to assign a course that wasn't relevant to interns, I had to put in 19 rules to capture EACH of the 19 sub-departments. If we had an option to include IS NOT, then I would have only had to do one rule -- IS NOT Interns. It was such a hassle that I eventually persuaded our HR team to change the entire structure of our company to put Interns as a separate department. There are definitely good use cases for using an IS NOT.
At 64 votes, it would appear that there is more than sufficient demand for this feature. Why the hold up? This is easily one of the most highly requested features in this Ideas portal.
I have come up with many cases when I wished I could filter by Department Is Not (the merged idea). I don't think this is a complex condition to understand for users.
Totally understand that this rule could be messy if not understood. What if there was an option to de-select the sub-departments that you don't want to include instead?
Hello Admins,
"Is not" casts such a large net that it is more prone to error, and has potential for such impactful consequences that we've never felt comfortable putting it in our rule builders. There is a sort of 'sweet spot' for clients who will really get value from this (in comparison to our other features which we target more broadly) because they have to be of sufficient complexity that inclusive rules are arduous, but not so complex that the total impact isn't fully understood. That's why it goes un-implemented to this day!
But if this idea gets sufficient votes, we will definitely reconsider our position.
I would like "department is not" as a filter option for all reports and functions within the site.
Adding "Is Not" is a long-standing request that I have seen requested many times. Not sure why Absorb hasn't been able to implement it given the popularity of the request.