Schedule reoccurring tasks in Planner

New Contributor

Uservoice Request-Schedule Reoccurring Tasks 

What is the status of this request please? The last note from the Team was August 12, 2019 stating "We should have a scheduling update in November when work on three BIG initiatives wraps up." and with nearly 10k votes there hasn't been an update since.

5 Replies

@LisaSa Thank you for your comment, and I completely understand your frustration.

 

To one of your points, while we do read through UserVoice when we are planning new features (and we use the ranking as input to our prioritization), we have definitely not done a great job posting and keeping our replies there up to date! We're actively looking at ways we can improve here--we love hearing from our users and definitely need this input to build our feature, so we want to keep that communication forum alive!

 

To your specific question on recurring tasks, our team has been heads down shipping some recent integrations, such as the Tasks app in Teams and Tasks in Docs (both of which are coming soon!). Recurring tasks (and the other top UserVoice asks) are high on the list once these integrations land. Recurring tasks comes up in all of our prioritization meetings, and it is high in our backlog. I’ll provide updates to UserVoice as this feature gets closer to being shipped!

 

Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns!

@Holly1 thank you for the information. When providing updates, it would be appreciated if updates for GCC environments are included as well. Rather than Planned, it would be nice to see an estimated date. 

 

Thank you!

@KOHare Thank you for the input! We will definitely be providing updates as we get closer to shipping (which is the point at which we can estimate a target date). 

 

Appreciate the point about GCC environments. We will keep that in mind when we're providing updates--if we have concrete info on environments, we will be sure to include it.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us today!

@Holly1 Might I suggest you consider providing updates in Uservoice now, if not sooner ?

 

Firstly: The Planner team has done a really poor job compared even to other MS teams on uservoice.

Secondly: Given the delays, and the 10,000 votes/comments since, saying that you'll update "closer to shipping" is tantamount to saying that you'll update sometime in the next three to five years ... which, oddly, is how long the request for "can we edit comments" has been outstanding. 

 

So, the question to "we will do it someday" is clearly ... why not now?
What keeps the Planner team from assigning someone to take an hour or two or a day if need be to at least give clients an indication that a) we hear you and b) we're working on this (or we're not) ? 

These are, after all, clients that are invested enough in the product to have taken *THEIR* time to go to uservoice and comment. 

The right way for the planner team to respect the value of that time would be to respond long before "closer to shipping".  

 

@Luis Rodrigues -- I posted an update to UserVoice yesterday morning for Recurring tasks (and a couple other updates have been added as well) :)

 

My comment on updating closer to shipping was specifically on the timing of when it will come out, which is not something we can commit to or comment on until we are closer to actually shipping it. 

 

We do go through UserVoice every time we are building a feature, and use that as input to the design of that feature. And, when there are meaningful updates to share, UserVoice does get updated.

 

The part we are definitely missing is that there is value in posting a new update, even if there is no new information, to make sure our valued users know that we are listening to and incorporating the feedback. That is the part we all agree we could do better at, and we're actively looking into ways we can find the resources to help with this! 

 

So just know your frustration is heard, and we're working to find ways (small, medium, and large) to improve here.