High-Level Summary of Low-Level Phases

Platform discussions Special workflows & use cases
, , , , ,
1

Really hoping someone has some advice here!

Problem:

I am hoping to use my high-level board to summarize the phases of each project. So essentially, each GROUP on the high level board would be a project (each project will have its own low-level board), and each ITEM within that group would be a summary of the phase of that project (on the low-level board, each phase is a different group). You can see my ideal breakdown at the bottom of this comment.

The phases on each of my projects are relatively consistent, ex: Brief Development, Concepting, Execution, Production, Trafficking, etc. Which is where I think I am running into some trouble.

Exploration:

The first option I have explored: default values in the connect column:
Because I would need to connect different groups (on low level board) to different items (on hl boards), I couldn’t just do one default value for the entire board.

The second option I have explored: Matching automations:
I love the idea of this, but I can’t figure out how to make it work. On the low level board, I would automate on a status column called “Phases”. But then when I try to connect it to “Name” on the high-level board, I am unsure how to indicate that it is the “Name” within the correct Group (or project). It automatically just assigns all of them to the first group.

The third option I have explored: Third-Party integrations:
I have tried many different things, but I am not having luck with any of them. I am really wanting to figure out how to make this work within Monday.

I am also aware that I could update the item name for each phase (on the high-level board) to be “Project Name: Phase”, and then update the status’ on the Phase column of the low-level board to match that language, but this also requires customization on each and every board. Which is time consuming.

QUESTIONS:

  1. Is this type of granularity possible? Like a more conditional match value automation? I feel like I just need one more condition on the match value automation and I would be set.

Otherwise, I am just having to do bulk connections for each phase. But with so many board (well over 100) and 10 - 30 phases within each board, I would much prefer to not go in this direction.

  1. Is there any way to automatically create a GROUP in the high level board, when a new low-level project board is created?

  2. Is there any way to automatically create an ITEM (within the correct group) in the high level board, when a group is created on a low level board?

Ideal Structure:

High Level Boards:

Group 1: Project 1
Item 1: Brief Development (summary of all Board 1, Group 1 tasks below)
Item 2: Concepting (summary of all Board 1, Group 2 tasks below)
Item 3: Execution (summary of all Board 1, Group 3 tasks below)
Item 4: Production (summary of all Board 1, Group 4 tasks below)
Item 5: Trafficking (summary of all Board 1, Group 5 tasks below)

Group 2: Project 2
Item 1: Brief Development (summary of all Board 2, Group 1 tasks below)
Item 2: Concepting (summary of all Board 2, Group 2 tasks below)
Item 3: Execution (summary of all Board 2, Group 3 tasks below)
Item 4: Production (summary of all Board 2, Group 4 tasks below)
Item 5: Trafficking (summary of all Board 2, Group 5 tasks below)

Group 3: Project 3 (this one does not include the Production item/phase)
Item 1: Brief Development (summary of all Board 3, Group 1 tasks below)
Item 2: Concepting (summary of all Board 3, Group 2 tasks below)
Item 3: Execution (summary of all Board 3. Group 3 tasks below)
Item 4: Trafficking (summary of all Board 3, Group 4 tasks below)

Etc (for, 1 high-level board summarizing, 100 + low-level boards)

Low Level Boards:

Board 1: Project 1
Group 1: Brief Development
Tasks
Group 2: Concepting
Tasks
Group 3: Execution
Tasks
Group 4: Production
Tasks
Group 5: Trafficking
Tasks

Board 2: Project 2
Group 1: Brief Development
Tasks
Group 2: Concepting
Tasks
Group 3: Execution
Tasks
Group 4: Production
Tasks
Group 5: Trafficking
Tasks

Board 3: Project 3
Group 1: Brief Development
Tasks
Group 2: Concepting
Tasks
Group 3: Execution
Tasks
Group 4: Trafficking
Tasks

2

hi @torrie

Don’t know if you have tried the Rollup Multiple Boards app (see monday.com: Apps Marketplace). I am confident that you can solve your use case with that app. Always willing to have a chat on this.

3

I have seen this. As well as looked at the video around this, but it doesn’t have quite the functionality I am looking for. I will also need several high-level boards, and cannot recommend to my team to pay for this function.

4

Hi @Torrie Eberhard :wave:,

Navigating through your project phase summaries with the structure you’ve detailed does sound intricate, but we at upstream are here to navigate through it with you! Your use-case scenario with detailed breakdowns on high-level and low-level boards is quite insightful, and it’s something we’ve successfully implemented in various capacities for numerous projects.

As the longest-standing platinum partners of monday.com in our region, we’ve optimised and interconnected hundreds of boards, tailoring solutions to specific client needs like yours.

Your questions, particularly around automated board and item creation and connectivity, are areas we’ve tackled before. Would love to explore how we can mold monday.com to work seamlessly for your scenario without resorting to bulk connections, especially given your sizable number of boards and phases.

Feel free to drop me an email directly at amber@upstreamtech.io, and let’s set up a complimentary discovery session to delve deeper into solving these challenges.

Warm Regards, Amber | :telephone_receiver: +61 8 7170 5246

5

I have a similar situation although in my case rather than multiple boards, I have one board where multiple people have contributed and maintain different groups. You could think of each group as being a sub-plan, each for a different workstream. They could equally be separate boards.

Rather than needing to summarise each project into a programme of projects, I need to look across these disparate groups and summarise by phases of work, e.g. design, build, test, release, each with elements from the various workstreams (projects/groups) aggregated into summary items. I also have some items that are truly on separate boards and so I’m using a connected board much like you.

I have two methods to represent ‘main working board items’ on the high-level summary board:

  1. Some major milestones on the ‘working plan’ can simply be a connected item on the HL board. Others can be connected to multiple ‘working board’ items. The only ‘feature’ I have found here is that a milestone on the HL board is displayed on a Gantt or Timeline charts as a one-day bar, not as a diamond. Monday are aware of this and looking at having connected milestones display as a milestone diamond … but this isn’t a big issue. The date is correct, it’s only the symbol on the chart

  2. The major limit of method 1 is that HL items cannot be dependant on ‘working board’ items, i.e. you cannot set a dependency on a HL board item on one or more lower level board items, e.g. the testing rollup is dependent on (and so sensitive to date changes of) all the contributing testing items. For this I use an ‘Aggregation’ group on the working items board. This can be set to not display on any charts on the working items board. The aggregation group then includes items that aggregate items from the multiple workstreams. This is done via dependencies and so, say, a ‘Testing’ item in the aggregate group can be dependant on a dozen testing items from different workstreams. This ensures the aggregate item moves out with any slippage of any dependent item. I then make use of the ‘hidden’ lead/lag of Monday and set the timeline of the aggregate item to be from the earliest date of all the aggregated items, to the latest date of all the aggregated items. Monday will recognise the lead on the aggregate item and so although it is dependant on all the contributors, it starts with the earliest start and ends with the latest end. If an item slips the aggregate item will also then slip to the new latest date. This isn’t a true rollup as the aggregate item will retain the same total duration and so both its start and end will slip, but it’s generally the end we’re focussed on and so it works. I then connect this working board aggregate item with the HL board. Now the HL board has a roll-up item that is fully dependant on working plan items included in the roll-up, the only compromise being if (when!) it slips, the start will slip as well, unless I reset the aggregate item dates on the working board to the original start and new slipped end date, i.e. extend the aggregate item to the new longer timeline caused by the slippage

My issue now is in properly understanding which items should aggregate together as the different parts of the plan (groups) were built by different people. For this I’m working on a WBS so we can codify what sort of activity each item is so that roll-ups/aggregate items can be built accurately to include everything they should … and not include things they shouldn’t! But this is a different issue :slightly_smiling_face:

I hope this is of some use?