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

We are using 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 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

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

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

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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

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.

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 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.


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.


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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.