Posted: 12 May 2020 13:33 EDT Last activity: 19 Oct 2020 21:59 EDT
NBA Designer - Pega Marketing 8.4
We are building a new Marketing App on 8.4 and planning to utilize NBA Designer. Looks like Pega's recommendation is to use NBA designer from 8.4 onwards and get away with Traditional Campaigns approach.
Business would like to run 3 recurring schedules on any given day. And each run would target specific audience, offers and adaptive model. Offers data would be delivered to downstream systems in the form file(s).
1.Has anyone came across above scenario and implemented using NBA designer? Can NBA designer support the above scenario?
2.Any learnings/inputs to share w.r.t. NBA Designer.
No real-time triggers for strategy execution.
P.S. We already have 10+ multi-channel campaigns running in 7.4 version in PROD. The above mentioned app setup is on a brand new 8.4 instance.
If I can ask, what is the background to 3 different outbound schedules? Typically you would not need 3 schedules, and infact Designer gives you a warning about having multiple schedules not being a best practice. There are sometimes good reasons to have multiple schedules, so its important to understand your reasons for it first. So if you give us the background, we might be able to better guide you.
I'm not entirely sure, but it sounds like you are trying to create some sort of sequencing effect. Is that correct? Why are you doing that sequencing...is it a hard business rule, or is it customer driven? Meaning, does the business HAVE to send a day 3 message or would it depend of the customer's propensity to take up or find interest in a day 3 and 7 communication?
Generally my recommendation would be to not use schedules to enact sequencing. If hard sequencing is needs, its likely that this is an engagement type of rule that says, day 3 actions are only applicable if day 1 actions were sent and not responded to by day 3 (this is normally done through the aid of IH Summaries). Having said that, often marketers do this sort of sequencing out of a user experience desire (driven by intuition) rather than driven by customer data or evidence. Consider if the sequence should be more driven by evidence...meaning there should be no hard rule about day 3 and 7, but driven by models that identify that what you thought to send on day 3 would in fact be relevant for that specific customer. As you think about that sort of approach, you become more customer centric and not driven by what you think the journey for the customer should be.
So review the rules and experiences you want and see if you can push them into engagement policies in NBA designer when absolutely needed, but preferably let the models and arbitration determine the true relevance for the customer.
It would benefit the community if you can tell us a little more about the true nature of this sequencing and we can go into more detail on potentials for your use cases.
@Saleem_A Thanks for your detailed response. Please find below some explanation on sequencing requirement/approach
On Day 1, an eligible Customer "ABC" receives an Offer "Day1-Offer A". This would be the first offer to Customer ABC. As part of Day 1, we are planning to use Adaptive Model to pick the best offer.
On Day 3, Customer "ABC" should be included in the segment only if Customer "ABC" has received an offer on Day 1 and not responded to the offer by Day 3.
In this scenario, On Day 3 the Customer "ABC" is expected to receive "Day3-Offer A". Here we are planning to make use of IH to check what offer was assigned to Customer "ABC" in Day 1 and assign Day 3 version of the same offer on Day 3(email templates are specific to each day).
On Day 7, Customer "ABC" should be included in the segment only if Customer "ABC" has received an offer on Day 1 and not responded to the offer by Day 7.
In this scenario, On Day 7 the Customer "ABC" is expected to receive "Day7-Offer A". Here we are planning to make use of IH to check what offer was assigned to Customer "ABC" in Day 1 and assign Day 7 version of the same offer on Day 7(email templates are specific to each day).
In short, hard sequencing is a requirement/need.
Posted: 8 months ago
Updated: 2 months ago
Posted: 12 May 2020 16:41 EDT Updated: 19 Oct 2020 21:59 EDT
I sort of understood or assumed this from your initial response. My questions are really trying to understand why there is this hard sequencing? Why is it that you are sending out stuff on day 3? The business reason behind it sounds like someone just said let's do this sequence and its not driven by any sort of evidence based on what customer needs. If that's the case, you might want to reconsider this approach in favor of something that is more customer centric (drive this with your business stakeholders). If there are good business reasons for the hard sequencing, then don't use the schedules, but use engagement policies in conjunction with IH summaries.
As Saleem explained, by day 3, conditions for customer "ABC" may have changed and some other action "XYZ" might be more relevant for him/her. This should be driven by the engagement policy and AI rather than a hard-coded time-based rule.
In your engagement policy, ensure that you define the eligibility, applicability, suitability and contact policy such that a customer qualifies for the most relevant action. Then let the factors in arbitration (AI + business levers, if any) prioritize and pick the best action for the customer.
Please go through the above course for more details.
Also, I strongly recommend (it's also a recommended pre-requisite for the above course), that you go through the course Cross-sell on the web to understand the basic concepts of 1:1 customer engagement and how to set-up and use the new Next-Best-Action Designer.