Skip to main content

Hi there!

We are working on importing our users via API into branches (named after their Department) using the branch code. Therefore I have a 2 part question :) 

 

  1. What is the benefit of importing via API based on branch code vs. simply the name of the branch (in this case their Department)?
  2. What are some best practices for branch code naming conventions to help us keep things organized? 

We currently have 29 total departments but I’m having a hard time finding an easy branch code naming system to keep things simple. However, if there’s no benefit to using the branch code in our case then we may just need to stick with the branch name to keep things simple. Hope this all makes sense. Thanks so much in advance! 

There is a benefit to using branch code. You can use branch codes to help deploy content to folks coming into your instance via self registration (because the code can help to drop them into the correct branch). Beyond that, branch codes may not show their greater benefit other than a unique identifier for the branch (and in some cases, I believe you can use branch code instead of name to get people mapped to the right branch in certain uploads). There may sound like there is a chicken and egg situation here, but I can describe if you want to DM me how we manage this.

Note I am not a huge API user, but we do leverage the automation app.

Best practice maybe watch for uniqueness - dont overkill on it (company abbreviation and number may do it for you). If you are going to expose the branch code to a user? Then I would say leverage something that is human friendly (a word for example).


Branch codes are also important to protect against creating duplicate branches...learned this the hard way with nested branches.

As for naming conventions...I usually start at the top with a main code and then add to that code for the sub branches so the codes are aligned to hierarchal representation of your branch structure.

Examples:

  • Main/parent branch = Compliance (code: COMP)
  • Sub branch = Audit (Code: COMP-AUDIT)

I would agree with @lrnlab as that is the general advice I give most of the clients I work with. Keep it simple and sub-branches carry the higher level branch plus an addition. This is especially important in more complex branch hierarchies where you may have the same branch name within different customer or geographical hierarchies (depending on how you’re utilizing branches). 

The branch code is also required if you ever chose to use the automation app to maintain your branch hierarchy - which you can do with a CSV file running through a FTP or SFTP server. Think of it as a daily file feed to maintain the hierarchy of branches. That CSV file relies on branch code to identify and move branches and the “parent code” which is the branch code of the branch that each branch sits under to build the top-down hierarchy.

If you’re just using APIs, then the branch code isn’t quite as important as APIs generally will use the branch ID behind the scenes anyway. 


If we change the branch code, will it remove the existing learners of that branch? And move it to the main pain parent branch? Or existing learners will still be on the same branch? Thank you. 


Overall if this is your only system and you only have 29 branches, setting codes equal to names would probably be fine for you. 


If we change the branch code, will it remove the existing learners of that branch? And move it to the main pain parent branch? Or existing learners will still be on the same branch? Thank you. 

You can safely change branch codes and names within Docebo. 
 

if you delete a branch it will move all users within that branch “up one” to the parent. 


If we change the branch code, will it remove the existing learners of that branch? And move it to the main pain parent branch? Or existing learners will still be on the same branch? Thank you. 

You can safely change branch codes and names within Docebo. 
 

if you delete a branch it will move all users within that branch “up one” to the parent. 

Thank you Irodman, 


Reply