Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply

Include subgroups in group-based lookup?

Copper Contributor
Posts: 21
Country: United States

Include subgroups in group-based lookup?

Using Act! 2008 (about to upgrade to 2009).

 

I have a group called Musicians, with subgroups by instrument:

 

Musicians

Violin

Viola

Cello

...etc

 

Sometimes I will want to e-mail all violin or viola players, but sometimes I will want to e-mail all musicians, regardless of instrument.  Short of assigning each musician to two groups (Musicians and [instrument]), is there some way to create a lookup based on a group, including all subgroups?

 

Thanks,

Barry Chester

relative novice Act! user

Platinum Elite Contributor
Posts: 6,651
Country: USA

Re: Include subgroups in group-based lookup?

A lookup on a field in the groups screen does include all the subgroups. However, what it gives you is a lookup of the groups, not the contacts. The better choice would be to assign each contact to a group for an instrument or add a field to the contact record where you list all the instruments a particular musician plays. If you use a multi-select dropdown on that field, you would be sure your entry was consistent and that you could easily search the contact record.
Roy Laudenslager
ACT! Certified Consultant
ACT! Report Expert
Durkin Impact Report Designer
www.techbenders.com
royel@techbenders.com
541-343-8129
Copper Contributor
Posts: 21
Country: United States

Re: Include subgroups in group-based lookup?

Roy,

 

This is an interesting idea and I'll try it out later today.

 

It does beg the question though:  what practical benefit do I get from having a hierarchical tree structure for companies and groups?  If I have contacts in abig organization with lots of divisions and locations, each set up as a division of the company, how do I go about generating a list of everyone in the company, or at various nodes in the tree?  The answer for groups seems to be "you can't" other than by tagging each contact using a separate field, which seems to me to underutilize the relational database capabilities.

 

Barry