CRM 4.0 workflow

Using "or" instead of "and" in workflow

I am trying to say:

If Account:Address 1: State/Province does not equal [NY] or [MA] or [CT],

blah blah blah.

But it seems the condition will only say "and".  I would have also thought I
could use "not in" but it only allows one entry.

If Account:Address 1: State/Province not in [NY]. Can't add any more entries
to this...

Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Who is Participating?
WilyGuyConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Yours looks fine.

So if there is no State, you assign to someone
Then if there IS a state you are going to check if it is in a territory, so understand:
- you are trying to get the condition to "fail' (if it doesn't equal 1 AND if it doesn't equal 2 AND if it doesn't equal 3 assign it to this person).  So you are "bundling" that in a "If it isn't in our existing territory - do this"

I was able to add multiple characters to the NOT IN clause.  It is funny that all the DOES NOT EQUAL in an advanced find end up as a SQL statement with a NOT IN....  

Still no advancement on the NOT is not available when using Picklists or Lookup fields.  You CAN add a Dynamic Value there.  not sure what the functionality is supposed to be.  I think you can do a comparison to already established values (dupe checking maybe)

I FINALLY got the NOT IN to do SOMETHING :).  I said if Account:State/Province NOT IN Primary Contact State/Province make the Account main Phone number 5.
I then created a Contact with a State of MD and then created an Account in VA with that as the Primary Contact and sure enough it changed the number.  Then I made another account in MD with that as Primary and it didn't change it.  I feel like it could be useful, but not sure how yet.

Hope that finished answering the question you didn't really ask, while answering the one you did.

2 ways to do this I think
The Not In is a list, so I just type and separate with comma

So State/Province NOT IN MA, NY, CT

it should save and work as expected.

OTHERWISE, you could cascade some IFs.
If it doesn't equal NY, then the next Condition check is the next state, etc.  basically you drop to the "Else" if none of them are equal.  

I tested the first one (somewhat dirty test) but it worked.

Not great documentation on the NOT IN condition.
OK, weird, my second test failed (of the first method)

Keep up with what's happening at Experts Exchange!

Sign up to receive Decoded, a new monthly digest with product updates, feature release info, continuing education opportunities, and more.

Alright, so the second method works.

BUT, I also just added each state as a separate Does Not Equal and it created the AND.  Maybe I am confused what you want to do:

MD or PA or DE - do the workflow action
NY or CT or MA - don't do it....

Am I right?
When I added the three Does Not Equals...I get a (S/P does not equal NY) AND (S/P does not equal CT) AND (S/P does not equal MA)

simprickAuthor Commented:
Thanks WilyGuy.  Here is a little explanation.  States are grouped into sales territories, but not all states just the 17 states we are currently working in.  So I am try to assign leads to the VP of sales if lead is not in one of our currently defined 17 states to determine who to assign the account to.  So I am trying to say (in the most straight forward way)
If Account:Address 1: State/Province does not equal [NY] or [MA] or [CT], (or any of the defined states that are grouped into territories)

then:  Assign lead to VP of Sales (or something to that affect)

I thought of doing the clause for each state but it just seems to be redundant and hard to manage as the states are going to change as the companies grow.  Seems like there should be an easier way to say it.

So you need to just add each state with its own line, then as the states are pulled into territories, you can add a new line.

Still trying to find the syntax for the "NOT IN" (seems like that should be the condition)
simprickAuthor Commented:
Take a look at the WorkFlow Main pic "Otherwise, if Lead:State/Province does not equal [ny] AND Lead:State/Province does not equal [ct], then:

I would have thought I could change the "AND" into an "OR" and that would make it pretty easy, I would just have 17 OR statements, but having to do that (Create check condition, then go to WorkFlow Condition screen, add the state, the add another condition, ect, takes forever, but I guess that is the way it has to be done.  Are you able to add more than 2 characters to the NOT IN clause?  I can't.

of course, I can also do that with Does Not Equal....sheesh.
simprickAuthor Commented:
Thanks WilyGuy.  I think I liked the workflow in 3.0 better.
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.