CiviCRM Community Forums (archive)

I dont think we have a good default way to handle the below. One option would be:

a. Create a new custom field called "Primary Contact For" and add the organization name to this field
b. Create a relationship between the organization and the individual. This is not needed, but might help you keep things consistent and clear.
c. Create a smart group where this field has a value. You might need to modify the where clause in the db to ensure this
d. Use this smart group for all your email notifications.

lobo

I've handled primary contacts through custom fields, and it works relatively well. Problem is that there are no rules to ensure each org has one (and only one) primary contact.

Anyway, just looking through the schema on another issue, and noticed there's a primary_contact_id field in the contact table. Is this used for households (I don't use households, so I'm less familiar with usage)? Couldn't this be extended to the indiv-org relationship? Would be very useful.

I agree it makes more sense as part of the relationship structure rather than the contact structure. I actually played with creating a custom "primary contact" field as a relationship type custom data group, but it's a little harder getting at those fields through the interface, so I ended up using the contact type custom field.

Also agree that the primary contact would work like permissioned user, with the exception that you would only have one primary, where you could conceivably have multiple permissioned.

Hi - would really appreciate some of your collective thoughts on this posting http://forum.civicrm.org/index.php/topic,3405.0.html which you may not see is related, but is trying to get to the nub of how we deal with 'positions' rather than people. It would also be a tidier way of dealing with the above since one can then set one of the 'office/role' contacts I am suggesting as being the primary contact.

The argument will, I expect, go along the lines of we can't have contacts who are not individuals or orgs etc. My point, which I hope is better explained in the thread I am trying to divert you to, is that the 'office/role/position' is often more durable than the person - and being able to have contact details belong to the 'office/role/position'  gets around some of the issues when people move on from a role.

Take George Bush (please someone!) - the 'office/role/position'  is the President of the United States (oh yes, of America - can we please get the Country list to specify the United States as the United States of America  ).

NOw it is really useful for us to have the contact phone number and address so we can give the President a ring. I dare say the phone number doesn't change when the President does. Therefore it makes more sense to have the contact details 'belong' to the 'office/role/position' rather than the individual - and we simply need a relationship between the individual and the 'office/role/position'

And of course it helps in all those situations where you know the position exists, but may not have the person's name.