Welcome to the PDG for the Enrollment Rules Engine (ERE)!

Looking forward to this initiative - we have a large user base, with many complex enrollment rules. 

Look forward to this. Thank you.

This is great news. Looking forward to seeing what solutions get proposed here. 

Excellent news, glad to hear that a redesign is in-flight. 

Couple of suggestions for the new Enrollment Engine feature. 

• Scheduling: the ability to define when an enrolment rule would run, reduces the processing load on the enrollment engine, and allows the Admins to greater control and flexibility around enrollments. 
  • Example Use case: For Onboarding, all Onboarding sessions begin on Mondays, therefore if the enrollment rule can be scheduled to only run on Sunday evening, this would reduce the processing load on the enrollment engine. Furthermore, Admins would only need to track/validate the latest run once weekly, reducing time the Admin’s would spend monitoring the rules.
  • Example Use case: Proactive creation of the enrollment rules. If Admins can schedule the rule to run beginning a certain date and/or only on a certain day of the week or certain day of the month. This would allow the Admins to proactively create the enrollment rule ahead of scheduled date, allowing for greater flexibility in scheduling large campaigns and reducing the possibility of human errors due to an overload of learning assignments all processing on the same day
• Retraining Cycle:  Ability to define a re-training cycle, define the criteria, Annual / Bi-Annual.
  • Example Use case: Annual Compliance trainings - New hires are assigned the Compliance courses as part of their onboarding learning plan. FTE’s are re-assigned the Compliance trainings as part of an annual initiative. If the enrollment engine can be scheduled to Archive/reenroll all FTE’s the training, this would reduce the processing load on the enrollment engine as it would only need to check the group criteria and process the enrollments once annually. 

​@domenico.carboni will this project include any updates on Group rules and operators?

This is a welcome initiative. I don’t usually throw in the towel on things I’m trying to do with Docebo Connect, but unenrollment logic based on the “user removed from a group” webhook ultimately did my head in. 🙃

The main issue was that we do not always want a user being removed from a group to result in their unenrollment. It matters to us why they were removed, i.e. which condition(s) are no longer true.

As an example, we have a condition to filter out users who are on longer-term leaves, because we don’t want to enroll them until they’re back. But if they’re already enrolled and then go on leave, we don’t want to unenroll them just because of that.

So it’d be really nice if automatic unenrollment could have its own logic, decoupled from its enrollment counterpart(s). Happy to elaborate on this if needed.

Hey everyone, thank you so much for joining the group and for all the great comments!

​@lrnlab The new engine is designed to have the same granularity you have with groups, but it will operate independently from them. While it handles all the current logic and improves operators, you won't be strictly tied to group structures anymore. We are also evaluating new conditions, and the core logic of your existing groups will remain untouched

​@CGeiger Thank you for the input! Your use cases are crystal clear, and I love the level of detail you provided.

​@Ian and to the whole community: we will soon be sharing a video concept of the idea we’re working on, followed by a quick survey. We are eager to collect your feedback and would be more than happy to dive deeper into your suggestions.

Thank you so much & stay tuned!

I’d love to join this PDG.

One of our challenges right now is reducing melt rate, as we have free registration. I’m building a Docebo Connect recipe to automatically unenroll staff users who aren’t actively engaging in their courses, and hoping this will help. We’re also seeing a strong need for session enrollment rules. 

Very interested to see what you produce and what others have for pain points along with suggestions.  I struggle with a few things: 

We have physicians that are enrolled to mandatory modules due to branch enrollment rules, but then some of them due to their classification type (additional field created) are exempt from some of them.  So we create a .csv or manuall unenroll individual physicians per module.  What I would love to see, and I think i have put it in the ideas portal, is to be able to do a combo mix of Group and Branch in an enrollment rule.  Right now you can only do Group OR Branch, which sadly in our previous LMS we could do both, so it caused a huge hiccup when we launched with Docebo.  I want to be able to keep the Branch as part of the mandatory, but if they are also in Group X then they are excluded from the particular module.  Would so help all the extra work we do.  Also, with this even for now if you accidentally select Group but you meant to select Branch or you meant to select Course and you selected Learning plan, it doesn’t let you go back, you have to delete and start all over, again not great for client experience.

The other item is to unenroll one person with a checkbox beside their “enrolled” status courses person in their Personal Summary and just bulk unenroll (again, something we could do in our previous LMS), but here I also have to go into the courses one by one, or create a .csv file.  

Hoping since they are doable in other LMS’s it would be doable here.

And would love to NOT have to create an enrollment rule for a group, then have to do a duplicate one-time enrollment in the module to activate it, because we created the group first.  I just find this part annoying LOL!

Anyway, that was a good ramble, but definitely some thoughts for you to think about :)

Our organization is very interested in this initiative. With our EHS compliance needs and auditing, it is critical that we are able to assure users have the required training they need. Automatic groups are fine but can be complex and include users who do not indeed require the training due to some of their limitations which leads to additional manual processes needing to be implemented to satisfy enrollment and unenrollment needs. 

I would like to see more information in the group when looking at members and downloading the member information so that cross referencing with a report to get more information is minimized. Dates that they were added to group etc would be helpful. Also, what enrollment rules are attached to the group would be great rather than having to track on manual spreadsheet.