10 answers
Hey there Carri, Great, thanks to you both! Bottomline is we want to see who reps what accounts and in what capacity so sounds like AT is the way to go. We still give out access via sharing rules for plenty of other users that wouldnt be on an account team so those would remain in place. We would manage the ATs centrally on our Admin team based on geographical criteria in a process builder. Frequently when someone leaves if we arent notified (another issue) their name remains on the accounts and I think this is what is driving this request. They thought with TM it would be more automated and less to maintain, but so far I'm not finding that to be the case. True? For TM, you are basically building a Group based on criteria on the record (which state are they, which industry, which business size are they). The Account team has more to do with a User's role when working with the Account (Sales, BDR, Support, etc). So you could use both together. @Nate I have a silimar use case but I want the users to be a part of different teams. One Account can be in multiple teams and the users can be in more than one team. Will Account Team work for that? And, Account Teams are on the Lightning Roadmap, so there isn't an issue there. Hey there Carri! That doc is super confusing in that regards, its basically saying use Account/Selling Teams to do your territory management instead of Enterprise Territory Management (TM). Sorry for introducing that confusion to you! SO yeah, do the Account Teams and you are golden. I see they listTeam Based as an alternative but I can't find anything else about it. Hmm now I'm a little confused, youre saying this is a better use case for terrotory mgmt, not account teams? I'll add we do not use forecasting and we do plan onmoving to lightning in the next year most likely. Hey there Carri! I would think so, especially given the manual aspect of it. Salesforce presents TM as a last resort kinda thing. Based on your needs, team based territory management is the logical choice: