Require another user type between 'Member' and 'Viewer'

Feature requests
,
1

We are using Monday.com across a large organisation with quite a large number of users (several hundred).

We are now finding it difficult to continue to fund and expand use of the product, due to the limitations in the types of billable users.

As our organisation is large and layered, we have a very large percentage of Monday.com users who are only required to access boards to either add or comment against items. They do not need to create boards, automations, integrations, etc, and their role in the organisation will never require them to use the product for these purposes. Their usage is very basic - just to edit content on already created boards. The cost/benefit ratio for these users is significantly unbalanced.

However these users are billed the same as our ‘power users’ who do create the boards, automations, integrations etc, to manage projects and tasks within their area (ie are using the product to its full capability and taking advantage of its features).

This is making the product very expensive billing-wise, and means we can’t easily expand to other areas.

It would be great if there were a less expensive level of user that was a basic user of the product, and the ‘Member’ user pricing could be applied to only those who use the product to its full extent.

This would make the product more accessible to organisations that could potentially have a few thousand users, but for whom the current cost structure is prohibitive.

I’m interested in whether anyone else sees a need for this type of user and pricing package?

(Just a note - it’s been suggested to us before that we could train all our users to take full advantage of all the features of the product so they are more than just at the basic level - however this does not make sense within our organisation and nor would it provide appropriate payback value.)

Thanks for your thoughts!

1 Like
2

Hello @nikkige,
Is it possible to have the “not power users” use the boards through forms, since their usage is only limited to updating or creating new items?

1 Like
3

This is an excellent point, commercial deals aside, this does prevent us scaling the tool at the current time

1 Like
4

Thanks @kolaai - yes, we had considered whether this would work, but the problem is that these users also need to be able to continue to comment on and update the items once they are submitted, and I don’t believe there’s an easy way for them to be able to do that.

2 Likes
5

In this instance, you can use the Duplicates and Uniques app to help you out here. The only issue is that currently, the app doesn’t support “Updates”. Though it’s something we are looking to add in the future. If possible, at the moment, you can substitute the Updates with a text column and that will work just fine.
Basically, using the app, users can update existing items with new data automatically. For columns, like the text column, you can create a template that will add the new incoming data to the already existing data instead of replacing it.
For the users, they will only need a Unique identifier for that task they are trying to update so that the app knows which item to update. No other change will needed on their end since they will be using the same form to create and update the existing item
Here is a demo of how to do that.
If you need any help, you can always reach out to support@kolaai.com

6

Thanks @kolaai I’m not sure if this is going to give us the desired outcome however. We want the users to be able to see the board, and when they submit items for these to be recorded as submitted by them. They also need to contribute to discussion in the comments area. So they need to use the product just like the other users, but the difference is they might just access a few boards, and just to add or comment on items.

1 Like
7

I completely second that! We want to be able to have people in the same organization (same email domain) to be able to view and make comments, but that’s basically it. They would not work with Monday beyond that and there’s no way the company will pay the cost of those extra full-priced seats
esp since we are already paying a lot for Enterprise. It’s just not worth the cost to add them as regular users, but then at the same time it makes using Monday.com not as ideal as it could be and I don’t want them to switch to another PMP due to that. I think a nominal fee for people within your organization to just have these capabilities would be essential. Adding another form of user is a great idea and I hope they’ll consider. My company would be more likely to adopt it on a larger scale through departments if it weren’t so expensive and strict regarding this.

6 Likes
8

I agree also. We do not have enough Monday users to justify going to Enterprise at the rates they quoted us, but do need more licenses for team members to simply update the status and notes in their own work items in projects. At this time, I have pushed the responsibility to the PMs, but if a PM takes PTO for a week, and a work item with dependencies is completed, it is not updated in the system and the person assigned to the dependency does not get advised they can start their work item unless there is direct communication between team members. Counting on that in a widely distributed group of remote workers is not totally reliable. We need the ability to have the system do the work by having a limited edit only license. Create and delete not needed for work items or boards or forms.

4 Likes
9

I agree with this - I would love to see the “Viewer” have more functionality, specifically the ability to comment/provide updates.

Our current workaround is to utilize guests on the enterprise level, but they cannot use the same email domain that our account set up is and that proves risky with data/information having folks use outside email domains. This also requires shareable boards which makes those boards private resulting in less organization wide transparency unless you invite your entire company to the board.

3 Likes
10

Exactly this. We are now moving towards Enterprise to expand our licences after our pilot, going from 50 licences to 300. But even like this, we have difficulties thinking in what we will do in the future, these 300 licences are not enough to have all our projects and our daily tasks really tracked in Monday, as we need lots of users to make little updates every day. For an organizations that have more than 3000 potential users, but around 80% of them only would do updates, is quite difficult to think in upgrading even more.

2 Likes
11

I concur with the other posters here, there are lots of uses for people to interact with monday, that don’t need/want to be users. I know that in my environment, it would be great to have people be able to submit updates/comments on projects, but they will “never use PM software.” A great way to expand usage might be to see how easy it is to update/add comments to what they can view, and then get the buy-in that maybe they could use it more.

Just a thought from a PM that is working in a PM role for a company that doesn’t like PM.

2 Likes
12

It appears this topic represents a need that has gone unmet for some time. I’m new to the system, however the fact that “Viewers” can’t simply add comments to the Updates section has started to de-emphasize the value of the tool.

We recently launched a New Product Development request system in our organization of ~350 people globally. We truly only need about 50 licensed “Members” actively using the system. However, on occasion, it’s helpful to get some clarifying info from a requestor before making a determination on whether to pursue a project. Since we’ve had to push these people back to using email, it has been counter productive to our efforts encourage the use of the tool.

While it is possible for someone to copy the link to the item update, paste it into an email and send it to a person they think will respond
 very few of our folks are going to make that extra effort. It’s reverting quickly back to inconsistent email chains.

Currently I have 50 requests in various states in the NPD system. There are 7 people (“Viewers”) that it would be beneficial to receive comments back from. Buying 300 more licenses to give 7 people the ability to add a comments doesn’t make sense. The more significant issue is that we just had our 2023 Global Kickoff and touted the value of Monday.com to all our employees, but word is spreading fast on it’s limits


2 Likes
13

I have a similar use case where my team creates hundreds of deliverables for the rest of the company, but many of those users only need to change a status column to approved. I’d even go so far as to have them use forms to add the new items, but I still need them to be able to update 2 status columns for approval. Currently we’re using a spreadsheet with each team in a Microsoft Teams chat. Seems pretty outdated when we have this really powerful tool at our fingertips.

14

We are also in the middle of trying to figure out a solution for this issue. We really need a user profile that allows for “Update” comments only and does not allow the user to make changes to any additional columns like, “Priority” or “Due Date”.

15

It looks like this comment has been out here for almost a year now but there doesn’t seem to be any fixes in place for this in Monday. We are trying to use Monday as our company IT ticketing system which requires back and forth communication with everyone in the organization but we do not have everyone licensed since not everyone in the company uses Monday and it would be very expensive to get everyone a license.
Is it on a roadmap to have a role added to be able to comment on items they are assigned to? For us it could be set up just like the guest accounts but with the ability to have internal domains.
We have only been on Monday since the beginning of the year and keep running into roadblocks that make this feel like it isn’t the best tool for scalability in an organization which is very concerning.

2 Likes
16

A “comment only” license for people in the same domain is a gap in the subscription model. Being in the same domain does not mean you need the same functionalities as a team member. Why pay for something you don’t use?

2 Likes
17

Wonder where we’re at for this specific request? We REALLY need this feature to be available under the Viewer access!

2 Likes
18

Can we have news about this feature request?

3 Likes
19

“I hope that within the scope of this new product ITSM, the need for a new type of user will be taken into account.”

20

Need like a member light with just basic features.

3 Likes