At some point “recently” the decision was made on McNeel’s side to block non-Admin’s access to Team license reporting (Historical usage). The current answer is to make anyone who want’s access to utilization an admin.
Given that admins have full organization control to add/remove members and edit the single sign-on config for the org, we believe this these are overly broad permissions.
I understand that splitting roles could open gates to other more fine grained permission requests, but in our use case where we just want to provide department heads insight into how their licenses are being used, granting them access to change and possibly break the environment seems like a gap that can be closed.
An alternative currently available could be for us to leverage the API. I found some forum posts here and it looks like it could give us the info, but we’d need to build our own reporting. This would force us to recreate and maintain something that McNeel already has. We’d rather not add another system to ours just for reporting on license use.
I’m posting here to help gain some support from the community to add an additional Member+Reporting access role.
If someone else is aware of something we’re missing. I’m open to alternatives.
The change to allow only admins to see users in teams is for privacy purposes. For schools worldwide, distributing personally identifyable info among team members was deemed a bad idea.
What problem are you trying to solve by enabling reporting for ordinary users?
Brian, the issue is trying to help our general user base know why they can’t get into Rhino. They could view the report and then attempt to work out if one of the users consuming a license was actually using the software instead of just parked in the software with it open.
With the current structure, answer that question requires asking an Admin. The only admins for our team are the IT group who are responsible for adding licenses and maintaining the SSO config.
It looks like there are now several issues logged for us to review this. I’m not sure how long it will take for us to actually implement them. Thanks for the feedback.
+1 for this issue. Would be great to skip the step of messaging our (overwhelmed) IT who then emails the group to find out who is not actively using it. Will track any updates here as noted. Thanks for considering.