Follow-up

Beyond Portfolio Analytics

What if running core workflows with confidence required no effort?

Portfolio Analytics is the clear and proven option. This section puts into focus the corresponding capabilities. A structured and searchable data foundation, with a flexible stack built on top of it. This way, AI experiences, governance agents, dashboards, and future MCP consumers all draw from the same underlying intelligence layer, without expanding the scope of analytics itself.

1
Portfolio Data Model
We don't need more metadata. We need to make it structured and searchable.

Make already has everything needed: Scenario Properties, Teams, Analytics, and Grid. The missing step is normalizing existing metadata into a portfolio-level data model that combines ownership, folder hierarchy, criticality, runtime metrics, error data, and usage data into a single surface that AI, dashboards, and external tools can query.

Scenario Properties Ownership & Teams Folder Hierarchy Criticality Runtime & Error Data Usage Data
2
Query Layer
One reusable layer. Every consumer benefits.

A thin layer above the data model that allows Make, AI, and external tools to ask structured questions about the automation portfolio. The same query layer can power Analytics, AI experiences, future MCP integrations, and external reporting tools.

Show me critical workflows with rising error rates.
Which departments consume the most operations?
Which business processes have no clear owner?
3
Insight Engine
Ask questions. Generate insights.

The first AI experience built on the query layer. Users can ask questions in natural language, generate dashboards, KPI widgets, and reports — or explore portfolio data conversationally. Dashboard generation is one outcome, not the core capability.

Natural language queries Dashboard generation Widget generation Conversational exploration
4
Governance Layer — Maia in Grid
Don't ask for insights. Receive them.

Three specialized agents — Maia Executive Advisor, Maia Operations Partner, and Maia Team Enablement Partner — operate on the same portfolio foundation, moving from reactive reporting to proactive guidance: ownership gaps, reliability risks, dependency risks, cost anomalies, and optimization opportunities.

Maia Executive Advisor Maia Operations Partner Maia Team Enablement Partner
The core idea
Current path
Build dashboards as the primary way to uncover key insights. Each dashboard is set up manually for the time being.
Portfolio intelligence
Structure the portfolio once, make it searchable — then let dashboards, AI agents, and MCP integrations query it as needed.
Insight Engine Organization Overview
Analytics
Organization Overview
Total Executions
847K
↑ 12% vs prev period
Operations Used
3.2M
↑ 8% vs prev period
Error Rate
1.4%
↑ 0.3% vs prev period
Active Scenarios
312
+14 this period
Teams
18
Across 6 folders
Executions over time
Daily executions — last 30 days
Top scenarios by operations
This period
Custom Insights
✦ Insight Engine
Insight Engine
Describe the insight you need — or pick a suggestion
AI
Hi! Tell me what insight you need and I'll build the widget. Or an entire dashboard or we can just chat about it
Preview
Suggested
Error rate for Business Critical
Ops used by department
Finance team health
AI scenarios this month
Revenue impact by owner
Hours saved — all teams
Widget generated
Widget config
📊

Widget Builder

New
① Source
Organization (all)
Specific Team
Folder / Subfolder
② Metric
System Metrics
Executions
Operations
Error Rate
Active Scenarios
Custom Properties
Revenue Impact
Hours Saved
Cost Avoided
Risk Score
③ Filter by property
All
Business Critical
Revenue
Finance
AI / Agentic
High Risk
Filter using any custom Scenario Property or system field.
④ Group by
None
Department
Team
Criticality
Owner
⑤ Visualization
🔢
KPI Card
📊
Bar Chart
📈
Line Chart
🍩
Donut
Live Preview
Error Rate
1.4%
Org-wide this period
Business Critical
Grid Agents in Grid
Make Grid
✦ Make Agents
Select your agent
Maia Executive
Advisor
Maia Operations
Partner
Maia Team
Enabler
Maia
Your executive AI partner — business process health, automation ROI, and portfolio risk across your Grid.
+10%
IT Automation ROI vs last month
↑ $24K labor hours saved
76%
Scenarios healthy
⚠ 3 business processes at risk
Maia detected
HR Onboarding blocked
3 scenarios failing — employee provisioning stalled. 12 open onboarding tickets affected.
Finance close at risk
Invoice Sync 14% failure rate this week. Month-end reconciliation impacted.
Salesforce API deprecation — Q3
Migration required for 14 scenarios across Finance, Sales & Marketing.
Sales pipeline automation healthy
CRM Enrichment + Lead Mgmt drive 78% of qualified leads. No issues detected.
Process failure rate — 7 day trend
14% M T W T F S S
↑ +8% vs last week · Invoice Sync + HR Provisioning driving spike
Scanning Grid as CIO view. HR onboarding and Finance close are at risk. IT ROI is up +10% MoM. What would you like to explore?
Which business processes are most at risk?
Show automation ROI breakdown
What is the Salesforce migration impact?
Org Admin Agent
Operational health — connections, ownership, governance, and team activity across Grid.
Maia detected
9 scenarios, deactivated owners
3 run daily and touch your main CRM. Accounts deactivated <60 days ago.
Salesforce token expiry in ~16 days
Last auth: 14d ago. 12 active scenarios at risk if not renewed.
3 dormant scenarios, no owner
Email Digest, Report Export, Data Backup — 45+ days idle, unassigned.
2 teams — zero Grid activity
HR and BI: no deploys or edits in 30+ days. Possible adoption gap.
Grid activity by team (runs/wk)
Finance Sales Mktg HR BI 80 65 22 4 6
HR and BI critical gap · 3 teams healthy
Viewing Grid as Org Admin. Found 9 orphaned scenarios and a connection expiry in 16 days. Where should we start?
Which connections are expiring soon?
Show all scenarios with no owner
Which teams have lowest Grid activity?
Team Lead Agent
Team performance — reliability, bottlenecks, and contribution patterns for your scenarios.
Maia detected
Order Pipeline: no error handler
Runs 4× team average with zero error handling. Silent failure risk.
Invoice Sync slowing team SLA
Salesforce module avg +3.4s/run — causing rework for 2 members.
2 members haven't shipped in Q2
Alex K. and Jamie L. — no scenario deploys this quarter. Good pairing opportunity.
Lead Management performing well
870 runs/wk, 99.6% success rate. Team's most stable scenario.
Scenario run volumes — this week
115 M T W T F S S
Order Pipeline · peak 115 runs Fri — no error handling
Looking at Finance Ops team in Grid. Order Pipeline needs attention and Invoice Sync has a bottleneck. Want sprint recommendations?
What should my team focus on this sprint?
Which scenario has the most reliability risk?
Show me team contribution gaps
Finance Ops
Sales & CRM
Marketing
Engineering
!
!
!
Campaign Flow
Support Flow
Grid Agents in GridMarketing● Selected
Make Grid
✦ Make Agents
Select your agent
Maia Executive
Advisor
Maia Operations
Partner
Maia Team
Enabler
Maia
Your executive AI partner — business process health, automation ROI, and portfolio risk across your Grid.
+10%
IT Automation ROI vs last month
↑ $24K labor hours saved
76%
Scenarios healthy
⚠ 3 business processes at risk
Maia detected
HR Onboarding blocked
3 scenarios failing — employee provisioning stalled. 12 open onboarding tickets affected.
Finance close at risk
Invoice Sync 14% failure rate this week. Month-end reconciliation impacted.
Salesforce API deprecation — Q3
Migration required for 14 scenarios across Finance, Sales & Marketing.
Sales pipeline automation healthy
CRM Enrichment + Lead Mgmt drive 78% of qualified leads. No issues detected.
Process failure rate — 7 day trend
14% M T W T F S S
↑ +8% vs last week · Invoice Sync + HR Provisioning driving spike
Scanning Grid as CIO view. HR onboarding and Finance close are at risk. IT ROI is up +10% MoM. What would you like to explore?
Which business processes are most at risk?
Show automation ROI breakdown
What is the Salesforce migration impact?
Maia / Marketing Ops
Marketing operations view — connection health, ownership gaps, and scenario run volumes.
6
Marketing scenarios
⚠ 1 connection at risk
2
Unowned scenarios
⚠ Governance gap
Maia detected · Marketing Ops
Salesforce connection degraded
API v1 deprecation affects Lead Enrichment and CRM Sync. Both scenarios break at Q3 cutoff without update.
2 scenarios without an owner
Newsletter and Attribution Sync have no assigned owner. Assign before migration sprint.
Marketing ops volume by scenario (30d)
CRM Lead Push Newsletter Social Sched. Lead Enrichment Attribution Campaign Mon. 156K 48K 32K 28K ⚠ 19K 12K
Update the Salesforce connection
Assign owners to unowned scenarios
Team Lead Agent
Team performance — reliability, bottlenecks, and contribution patterns for your scenarios.
Maia detected
Order Pipeline: no error handler
Runs 4× team average with zero error handling. Silent failure risk.
Invoice Sync slowing team SLA
Salesforce module avg +3.4s/run — causing rework for 2 members.
2 members haven't shipped in Q2
Alex K. and Jamie L. — no scenario deploys this quarter. Good pairing opportunity.
Lead Management performing well
870 runs/wk, 99.6% success rate. Team's most stable scenario.
Scenario run volumes — this week
115 M T W T F S S
Order Pipeline · peak 115 runs Fri — no error handling
Looking at Finance Ops team in Grid. Order Pipeline needs attention and Invoice Sync has a bottleneck. Want sprint recommendations?
What should my team focus on this sprint?
Which scenario has the most reliability risk?
Show me team contribution gaps
Finance Ops
Sales & CRM
Marketing
Engineering
!
!
!
Campaign Flow
Support Flow
Grid Agent Setup
Make Grid
✦ Make Agents
Select your agent
EDIT
Maia Executive
Advisor
Maia Operations
Partner
Maia Team
Enabler
Editing Agent
Maia · Executive Advisor
Role & Scope
Executive advisor for Grid. Monitor business operations, surface risks, and translate workflow data into confident decisions.
System Prompt
Expand ↗
You are Maia, an executive advisor embedded in Make's workflow platform. Lead with insight, then evidence. Surface risks before they escalate. Never auto-remediate payment or compliance workflows without approval
Behaviour Rules
Escalate if failure rate > 15% / 1h
Always cite the triggering scenario
Never share raw customer PII
+ Add rule…
Retain memory
Last 20 sessions · org-wide
Access live Grid data
Scenarios · connections · teams
Data Access
Data Sources
Scenario Metadata
Analytics Data
Folder Structure
Scenario Properties
Teams & Ownership
Finance Ops
Sales & CRM
Marketing
Engineering
SF GS AT ST SK
SF ST GM SK AT
!
GS N
HS SF JI SK ZP
SF HS GM IC SK NO
TF HS MC IC SK
!
Campaign Flow
IC ZD NO GS SK
Support Flow
Case Study
Original Case Study
Context · Market · Personas · Research · Solution · Roadmap
Product Management Case Study

Enterprise
Portfolio
Analytics

As Make scales from workflow builder to enterprise automation platform, the challenge shifts from building automations to understanding and managing automation portfolios.

Platform
Make.com
Audience
PM Interview Panel
Focus
Portfolio Visibility at Scale
Scope
Subfolders + Custom Analytics
↓ Scroll to explore

Make has crossed the
enterprise threshold

Make started as a visual integration builder. For many enterprise customers, it has since become the connective tissue of their automation programs — running revenue-critical workflows across teams and functions.

Scenarios at Scale
100s–1,000s
Per enterprise org
Exact numbers vary widely — what matters is that at this volume, manual oversight breaks down
Teams Operating
10s
Across functions
Workflow Type
Business Critical
Revenue-impacting
AI Automations
Growing
Agentic workloads ↑

The assignment

Identify one critical friction point preventing large organizations from running business-critical workflows with confidence on Make.

Enterprise customers now operate complex automation ecosystems — hundreds or thousands of scenarios, AI agents, cross-functional programs. The scale they've reached looks very different from the "connect two apps" use case Make was originally built around.

At that scale, a new class of challenge emerges. And it's not about building more automations.

"As Make scales from workflow builder to enterprise automation platform, the challenge shifts from building automations to understanding and managing automation portfolios."

This single observation frames the case study. The challenge isn't whether individual automations work — it's whether the organization can understand and manage them as a whole.

iPaaS is becoming
something bigger

The market is no longer buying integration tools. It is buying enterprise automation control planes — platforms that provide operational confidence at scale.

Connect Systems
Point-to-point integrations
API glue code
Early iPaaS · 2015–2020
Manage Automation Ecosystems
Visual workflow builders
No-code / low-code
Make Today · 2021–2026
Orchestrate AI + Automation
Portfolio management
Operational control plane
Emerging Market · 2026+

From Connectors to Control

The future platform winner is not just the one with the most connectors. Enterprises increasingly expect operational confidence at scale — governance, visibility, and accountability as first-class capabilities.

Enterprise Orchestration

Analyst research identifies the emerging category as enterprise orchestration systems — not automation canvases. The distinction matters: buyers are now looking for a platform to run their automation program, not just build workflows.

AI Adds Urgency

As AI agents become part of automation portfolios, the need for a control plane intensifies. Nondeterministic AI flows running alongside deterministic automations require clearer visibility, not less.

📡

The Market Signal

Gartner and Forrester both identify "business process orchestration" and "automation governance" as the fastest-growing enterprise requirements in the iPaaS space. Vendors who deliver on operational confidence — not just workflow creation — will define the next generation of the category.

The window to own
enterprise confidence is open

Automation adoption is accelerating. The bottleneck is no longer creation — it is management. The platform that solves this first wins enterprise retention.

The challenge is shifting

Workflow Creation — Solved
Make's visual builder is best-in-class. Teams can create sophisticated automations without code. This is no longer the bottleneck.
Connector Breadth — Solved
3,000+ native integrations. If it has an API, Make can connect it. But connector breadth is increasingly table stakes — it's necessary, not sufficient.
Portfolio Visibility — Unsolved
As portfolios grow to hundreds of scenarios across dozens of teams, enterprises cannot understand their automation program through the lens of their business structure.
Operational Governance — Unsolved
CIOs cannot run executive reviews. Admins can filter scenarios by criticality in the Scenarios list — but that view doesn't exist in Analytics or Dashboards, which is where portfolio decisions get made. Finance cannot track automation ROI without exporting data out of Make.

Why enterprises are at risk

🔍 Visibility Gap
No way to answer "How many of our business-critical workflows are currently failing?" without manually inspecting each one.
📊 Reporting Gap
Finance and Operations cannot run quarterly automation ROI reports inside Make. They export data to Notion and spreadsheets instead.
🏢 Structure Gap
Make's flat folder structure does not reflect how large enterprises organize their work — by department, function, business process, or cost center.
🤝 Accountability Gap
When a business-critical automation fails, who owns it? Custom properties exist and can be used to filter the Scenarios list — but the Analytics Dashboard only filters by status, team, and folder. Custom properties don't appear there at all.

The highest-value opportunities in enterprise automation are not basic no-code capabilities.

They are enterprise-operating capabilities — the systems that help organizations run automation safely and confidently at scale. Visibility, governance, accountability, portfolio management, and business reporting. This is the category Make must win.

Three roles,
one shared frustration

Portfolio visibility failures manifest differently at each level of the organization. Understanding each lens — and where they converge — is critical to designing the right intervention.

👔
Executive
The CIO
Responsible for the strategic value of the enterprise's automation program. Presents to the board, manages vendors, and defines automation's contribution to business outcomes.
  • Operational resilience across all business-critical workflows
  • ROI visibility — total value generated by automation
  • Governance assurance without micromanaging teams
  • A single source of truth for automation health
  • Executive-ready reporting for quarterly business reviews
Key insight
The CIO does not care about individual workflow failures. They care whether the business can rely on automation as infrastructure.
🛠️
Platform Admin
The Org Admin
Owns the automation ecosystem. Responsible for keeping hundreds of scenarios healthy across dozens of teams, managing costs, and ensuring the right people own the right workflows.
  • Full visibility across the entire scenario portfolio
  • Clear ownership: who is responsible for each automation
  • Health overview: which scenarios are at risk right now
  • Cost tracking and operation budget management
  • Business-structure-aware filtering and prioritization
Key insight
Currently managing this from exported spreadsheets and Notion databases — building the analytics layer Make doesn't provide.
Team Lead
The Team Lead
Responsible for the automations within their function. Needs to know which workflows are working, which need attention, and how their team's automations contribute to broader business metrics.
  • Operational awareness of their team's scenarios at a glance
  • Fast troubleshooting when business-critical flows fail
  • Visibility into usage trends and error patterns over time
  • Ability to report team automation impact to leadership
  • Longer history than current Make Analytics provides
Key insight
Needs a team-scoped operational view — not the full org view, but more than a single scenario. Currently filtering manually.

Enterprise pain clusters around
control, not capability

13 Make-specific enterprise-relevant quotes were manually coded from G2, Capterra, GetApp, and the Make Community. The dominant themes are not missing connectors — they are debugging opacity, change management, but ultimately reliability and control as deployments scale.

Customer
Call
Emplifi · Enterprise customer interview

The user finds execution log search to be poor — results are not persistent and the matching logic is unclear, making root-cause analysis harder than it should be. Duplicating scenarios and sub-scenarios is tedious and unintuitive, creating friction when scaling automation patterns across teams. Across the conversation, a consistent theme emerged: the user wants more visibility into logs and variables, and better filtering and search capabilities to understand what their automations are actually doing.

Implication for this proposal
The Emplifi call adds a qualitative data point that reinforces the coded quote analysis: enterprise users are not struggling with what Make can connect — they are struggling to see and control what Make is doing. A dedicated observability and control layer is not a nice-to-have for this segment; it is the missing operating model that unlocks responsible scale.

"The error reporting is a bit technical… You have to either look up the issues or learn how to read the technical output. Credit use data… you can only view a month's previous data/credit usage. This can be troublesome when you are on pro or non-enterprise plans and you need to 'budget' your credits."

Theme: Debugging & observability (38% of coded quotes) — Error messages require reverse-engineering; usage data is capped at 30 days and locked behind the enterprise tier. The platform's power is undercut by the opacity of its failure modes and billing visibility.

"The 30-day log retention and full search are available only in the highest tier."

"Keep in mind that this will make debugging of the scenario very limited."

Theme: Debugging & observability (cont.) — Two independent sources converge: full log access is paywalled, and enabling confidential mode (common for enterprise security) strips debugging capability entirely. A feature request for advanced error logging has remained open since 2025.

"I would like to modify a scenario without taking it into use. A way to do this is to have different versions of a scenario and then determine which one is active. Then you also have history to go back and check how the scenario has changed. If you have version control, then it would also be possible to have auto save as you are not modifying the live scenario."

Theme: Change management & versioning (31% of coded quotes) — The request is four years old and still open. In enterprise settings, editing the live scenario directly — with no staging, no named versions, no rollback — is a meaningful operational risk for every team sharing a production workflow.

"I have lost countless hours on scenario builds because Make doesn't auto-save and only saves when you click save."

"I made a ton of edits and then came back to my computer the next morning, it asks if I want to save or discard changes, THEN it times out and erases all of them!!"

Theme: Change management & versioning (cont.) — Multiple separate threads report lost work from session timeout and missed manual saves — still happening in 2025 and 2026. The compounding risk in shared, multi-editor scenarios makes this a governance issue, not just a UX inconvenience.

"We do not find ANY way to connect a MS Teams User that is not an Admin. We tried many different approaches, none of them worked."

"Yes, we got the redirect URL from your docs: Microsoft Teams" — [the docs URL was wrong; Make confirmed and issued a correction]

Theme: Connector, auth & setup friction (23% of coded quotes) — Enterprise connector setup surfaces auth model mismatches (non-admin users blocked) and stale documentation. Make itself confirmed the redirect URI in its docs was wrong. Each mis-step is a setup tax that accumulates as connector breadth grows.

"As our automation usage grew, the cost per operation started to add up. Once you exceed the free tier (1,000 operations/month), costs escalate quickly — especially for scenarios that run frequently or process large volumes of data."

Theme: Pricing predictability (8% of coded quotes) — Operations-based pricing without cost-governance tooling catches enterprise buyers off guard at scale. The pattern appears across G2 and GetApp independently, suggesting it is a structural concern, not an outlier complaint.
Coded Make Quote Analysis — Top Friction Themes
Share of coded Make customer quotes by topic (n=13 quotes)
💡

The core pattern

Make is liked for its flexibility and visual builder. Enterprise pain begins when scenarios become complex, shared, or mission-critical. The unmet needs are not about connectors — they are about the operating model: observability, safe editing, auth governance, and cost predictability. That is a classic sign of a platform that has grown into enterprise use cases faster than its enterprise operating model has matured.

While the individual requests vary, they share a common pattern: customers are building increasingly large automation estates and lack the enterprise-grade visibility and controls required to operate them confidently.

Strong signals
from the community

One Idea Exchange thread — requesting a detailed scenario dashboard with longer history — captures the depth of unmet demand. It is not an isolated feature request. It is multi-year evidence of a structural gap.

make.com / en / platform-ideas
220
votes
Reviewed Platform ideas and improvements

List of scenarios: Detailed usage dashboard with a longer history

"We can start with a graph/dashboard to view which scenarios have used what percentage of the operations/data allowance for that month." — Miko Garrido · Created by Tereza Klobouckova · July 9, 2022

📅 Originally requested July 2022
Status marked Reviewed April 7, 2026
D
Duane Grice · January 7, 2026
"Need a total number of credits used month by month usage too, so we can spot trends like busy and quiet periods which can be drilled down and split out into different scenarios."
J
Jean-Baptiste JACOB · August 26, 2025
"Very annoying that you've got to go and look for the scenario that used a high number of operations on a given day. This feature would be great!"
F
Farhad Moradi · August 12, 2025
"We need this very badly as we never know where these operations are being used. We must be able to know what scenario is using the highest number of operations so that we plan scenario enhancements to run more efficiently."
E
Evate Automation · June 10, 2025
"Same here.."
Community Votes
220
Idea Exchange thread
Thread Status
Reviewed
Marked Apr 7, 2026
Duration of Demand
4yrs
Jul 2022 → Apr 2026
John Sultant
John Sultant Make Community
Idea Exchange · Detailed usage dashboard thread

"I'm currently spending quite a few operations to get my scenario and operations data out of Make and into Notion, where I can analyze it much better. Make is very fun to use — as long as you don't have to think about operations. With 40+ folders, 200+ scenarios, and a monthly reset on that counter, it just doesn't cut it for me.

I have a database in Notion with all my scenarios, linked to the business processes they're part of. Once a week, I sync all the operations data into my Notion workspace — to track costs over a longer period, calculate the 'cost per year' for every scenario, and roll up those costs to the process database.

The Irony: The scenarios I use to get this data into Notion consume 20–25% of my total operations! It would be much more helpful to have deeper insights into this data directly in Make. Right now, it's not even possible to sort scenarios by their operations or data usage!"

Status and cost of scenarios in Notion dashboard
Screenshot 1: Status and cost of relevant scenarios inside a given dashboard — "super valuable for us"
Scenario Details Template in Notion
Screenshot 2: Scenario Details Template in Notion — "a much longer history of operations usage helps me understand the value and cost of any given scenario"
Key figure: 20–25% of total operations consumed just to extract and analyze operations data — in an external tool.
⚠️

How to read these signals

The Idea Exchange thread validates breadth of demand (220 votes, 4 years, now Reviewed). John Sultant's post validates depth: a user with 200+ scenarios has built a shadow analytics layer in Notion and is spending a fifth of their operations to maintain it. Together they show the same gap from two angles — many users feel it, and the users who feel it most are doing the most work to compensate.

Make has a strong
enterprise foundation

This is not a platform starting from scratch. Make already provides meaningful enterprise-grade capabilities — the gap is specific and surgical, not foundational.

SSO & Identity

Enterprise-grade single sign-on, SAML integration, and identity management. Enterprise security requirements are met at the authentication layer.

Audit Logs

Full audit trail of platform actions. Compliance and security teams can track who changed what, when, and why across the organization.

Teams

Collaborative workspaces with role-based access. Teams enable ownership and permissions management across the organization. Note: not hierarchical.

Make Grid

Organization-level topology map providing visual orchestration of automation landscapes. Provides high-level oversight of what's running where.

Enterprise Security

SOC 2 Type II, GDPR compliance, encryption at rest and in transit, IP allowlisting, and dedicated enterprise infrastructure options.

Custom Scenario Properties ★

Enterprise customers can define and populate custom properties on scenarios: Business Owner, Department, Cost Center, Criticality, Environment, Business Process, Revenue Impact. These can be displayed, filtered, and sorted in the Scenario list. This is the critical foundation the solution builds on.

The missing layer

Customers can classify their automations using Scenario Properties. But they cannot operationalize that business context inside Analytics and Dashboards. The metadata exists. The analytics do not know it exists.

✓ What already exists in Make

Custom Scenario Properties are an enterprise-only feature that lets organizations add structured metadata — dropdowns, booleans, numbers, dates — to every scenario. From Make's own documentation:

Make scenario table view with custom property columns
Scenario table view with custom property columns — users can add arbitrary metadata (Importance, Owner, Business Unit, etc.) to every scenario. help.make.com →
Filter panel using custom properties
Filter panel — properties appear as filter dimensions in the Scenarios list.
Filter bar in Make scenario list
Filter bar — active filters on the scenario list, including custom property values.
✗ The gap — Analytics

Custom Scenario Properties are fully supported in the Scenarios module — for filtering, sorting, and table views. They do not exist in the Analytics Dashboard. There is no way to filter analytics by Importance, Owner, or any other custom dimension, nor to aggregate execution data by business structure. The metadata exists. The analytics do not know it exists.

The Problem Statement

Problem Statement

Organizations can classify automations
using Scenario Properties.
They cannot operationalize that context
inside Analytics and Dashboards.

As organizations scale from dozens to hundreds of automations, Make provides workflow visibility but lacks portfolio visibility. Enterprise customers already provide business context through Scenario Properties, but Analytics cannot leverage that context. As a result, organizations that have invested in classifying their automations by department, criticality, and business process cannot use that classification for anything beyond filtering a list.

1

This prevents large organizations from operating automation portfolios with confidence — forcing them to rebuild the analytics layer externally in spreadsheets and Notion databases.

2

It blocks CIOs from running automation-as-infrastructure programs with board-level accountability — making Make feel like a departmental tool rather than an enterprise platform.

3

Left unaddressed, this gap becomes a competitive vulnerability as enterprise-focused iPaaS vendors add governance and portfolio management as core platform capabilities.

Enterprise Portfolio
Analytics

Make already provides workflow visibility. Enterprise Portfolio Analytics extends that visibility into business context — helping enterprises understand, manage, and scale automation portfolios today, while laying the foundation for broader capabilities the market is moving toward.

💡 This proposal does not introduce a new enterprise platform. It unlocks value from capabilities Make already owns: Scenario Properties, Analytics, Teams, and Folders.


Deliberately Focused Scope

Enterprise Portfolio Analytics introduces two capabilities: Subfolders and a Custom Analytics Widget Builder. It is not a workflow execution platform, a governance engine, or an observability platform. It is a prerequisite capability — portfolio visibility through business context — that enterprises need before they can govern or orchestrate automation at scale.

Current Flow
Scenario Metadata + Make Analytics = Disconnected
Proposed Flow
Scenario Metadata + Custom Analytics = Portfolio Visibility

How This Complements Make Grid

Capability
Question answered
Layer
Make Grid
What is connected to what?
Topology
Analytics today
What happened?
Operations
Enterprise Insight Engine
What does it mean for the business?
Business context

These three layers are complementary, not competing. Grid answers topology questions. Analytics answers operational questions. Enterprise Portfolio Analytics answers business questions.


Long-Term Direction

The industry is moving toward enterprise automation control planes. But reaching that vision requires foundational capabilities first. Before organizations can govern automation portfolios, they must be able to understand them. Before they can orchestrate automation at scale, they need visibility into ownership, criticality, cost, business impact, and organizational structure.

🧭 Enterprise Portfolio Analytics is a foundational step toward the broader enterprise control plane vision emerging across the iPaaS market.

📁
Capability 1 · Optional
Subfolders

Teams provide ownership and permissions, but they are not hierarchical. Make currently lacks a way to mirror the organizational hierarchy of the enterprise. Subfolders introduce a simple, purpose-built structure for this — separate from permissions.

📁 Revenue
📂 Sales Operations
📂 Marketing Operations
📂 Customer Success
📁 Finance
📂 Billing
📂 Treasury
📁 Operations
📂 IT Infrastructure
📂 Procurement
Purpose: organizational structure, not permissions. Teams handle access. Subfolders handle navigation.
📊
Capability 2 — Primary
Custom Analytics Widget Builder

Administrators build analytics widgets from system fields and custom Scenario Properties — in a single unified builder. No artificial distinction between system metrics and business data. The platform provides primitives; customers create the views they need.

Phase 1 — MVP
KPI Cards
Phase 1
Bar & Line Charts
Phase 1
Property-based filters & dimensions
Phase 1
Custom date range
Phase 1
Free widget positioning on canvas
Phase 1
Phase 2
Multiple dashboards per org
Phase 2
Access roles per dashboard
Phase 2

The widget builder experience

A five-step flow that feels native to Make Analytics — because it is. System fields and custom properties are treated identically throughout.

1
Source
Org · Team · Folder · Subfolder
2
Metric
System or custom property
3
Filters
Any field or property
4
Dimensions
Group by business context
5
Visualization
Selected in preview
Analytics → Widget Builder — New Widget
① Source
② Metric
System Metrics
Executions
Operations
Errors
Error Rate
Active Scenarios
Custom Properties
Revenue Impact
Hours Saved
Cost Avoided
Risk Score
Aggregation
③ Filters
④ Group By
Preview — Executions by Department (Production · Critical)
📊 Bar
📈 Line
🔢 KPI Card
📋 Table

What enterprise teams actually build

Five illustrative dashboards — each answering a different business question. All built from Make's native analytics data (operations, executions, errors, status, team, folder) plus Custom Scenario Properties. None exist today. All become possible with the widget builder.

Dashboard 1

Reliability Dashboard

Otázka: Jsou naše business-critical automace zdravé?

Analytics → Reliability Dashboard · Criticality: Critical · Last 30 days
24h 7d 30d
Error Rate
4.2%
↓ 0.8% vs prev
Failed Executions
1,104
↑ 12% vs prev
Critical with Errors
5 / 12
⚠ 3 above threshold
Inactive Critical
2
Not run in >7 days
Error Rate by Criticality
Failed Executions by Department
Top Failing Workflows
ScenarioDepartmentErrors (30d)Error RateLast Failed
Revenue SyncFinance89110.68%3hr ago
Lead EnrichmentMarketing1436.2%Yesterday
Invoice ProcessingFinance1420.57%2min ago
Dashboard 2

Cost & Consumption Dashboard

Otázka: Kde spotřebováváme nejvíce automatizačních zdrojů?

Analytics → Cost & Consumption · All Teams · Last 12 Months
30d 12M YTD
Operations by Department
Usage Trend — Total Operations (12M)
Top Consumers
ScenarioTeamOperations (12M)Usage ChangeBusiness Process
Payment ReconciliationFinance312,480↑ 34%Finance Ops
ERP Order SyncOperations198,760↑ 8%Order Management
CRM Lead PushMarketing156,320↑ 62%Lead Generation
Dashboard 3

Governance Dashboard

Otázka: Kdo vlastní naši automatizační krajinu?

Analytics → Governance Dashboard · All Teams · All Scenarios
Total Scenarios
247
↑ 18 this month
Unassigned (No Owner)
34
13.8% of portfolio
Critical, No Owner
7
⚠ Requires immediate action
Automations by Department
Critical Workflows by Team
TeamCriticalNo OwnerInactive
Finance1441
Operations1120
Marketing610
IT903
Dashboard 4

Executive Portfolio Dashboard

Otázka: Můžeme se na naši automatizační platformu spolehnout?

Analytics → Executive Portfolio · All Teams · YTD
30d YTD 12M
Production Automations
247
↑ 31 YTD
Critical Automations
40
16.2% of portfolio
Org Error Rate
2.1%
↓ 0.4% vs last year
Business Processes
18
↑ 4 vs last year
Automation Growth (YTD monthly)
Error Rate Trend (YTD monthly)
Dashboard 5

ROI & Business Impact Dashboard

Otázka: Jakou hodnotu automatizace přináší? (requires Custom Properties: Revenue Impact, Hours Saved, Cost Avoided)

Analytics → ROI & Impact · All Teams · Last 12 Months
Total Hours Saved
14,820 h
= 7.4 FTE equivalents
Revenue Impact
$4.73M
↑ 22% vs prior year
Cost Avoided
$1.2M
Error prevention + SLA savings
Hours Saved by Department
Revenue Impact by Business Process
Powered by Custom Properties · Revenue Impact, Hours Saved, Cost Avoided set per-scenario by Operations team
🌐

The foundation for what comes next

Enterprise Portfolio Analytics is not the destination — it is the prerequisite. The platform provides primitives; each enterprise creates the views that match how they operate. As organizations build Reliability, Cost, Governance, and Executive dashboards, they develop the organizational data model that future capabilities — policy enforcement, resource governance, orchestration — will depend on. Portfolio visibility today. Control plane capabilities tomorrow.

How we know
it's working

Four measurement layers. The first two confirm the feature landed. The third — Value Realization — is the most important: it validates the core hypothesis that enterprises will manage automation through business context, not just technical metrics.

1 Adoption
Primary KPI
≥40%
of Enterprise orgs create at least one custom widget within 90 days of launch
Measures whether customers perceive value in the new capability.
Structure Adoption
≥60%
of Enterprise orgs with 100+ scenarios adopt subfolders
Validates that the hierarchy model solves a real organizational problem.
Depth of Adoption
≥5
median widgets per active Enterprise org at 6 months post-launch
Measures whether customers are building meaningful reporting workflows rather than experimenting once.
2 Engagement
Weekly Dashboard Usage
≥3×
dashboard viewing sessions per admin or org owner per week
Measures whether dashboards become part of operational routines.
Dashboard Maintenance
≥3×
dashboard edits per organization per month
Indicates active usage and evolving reporting needs rather than one-time setup.
Saved Dashboards
≥3
median saved dashboards per active Enterprise org
Measures whether customers are creating multiple business views — Reliability, Governance, Cost, Executive.
3 Value Realization

These are the most important metrics — they directly validate the core hypothesis.

Business Context Adoption
≥50%
% of dashboards using at least one Scenario Property
e.g. Owner, Department, Criticality, Cost Center, Business Process. The clearest signal that customers are operationalizing business metadata, not just using Analytics as they do today.
Dashboard Sophistication
≥2
average number of Scenario Properties used per dashboard
Measures whether dashboards evolve beyond single-dimension filters into genuine portfolio management views across ownership, criticality, and department.
Portfolio Visibility Adoption
≥40%
% of Enterprise organizations with at least one business-context dashboard
i.e. a dashboard that uses at least one Scenario Property as a filter or dimension. Directly measures whether the business-context analytics layer is being used for its intended purpose.
4 Long-Term Business Impact

Treat these as directional outcomes rather than launch KPIs.

Enterprise Retention Correlation
Δ Retention
Measure delta between orgs actively using custom dashboards vs. those that do not
Hypothesis: Organizations that operationalize automation visibility are more likely to retain and expand.
Enterprise Expansion Correlation
Δ Expansion
Measure expansion rate of orgs actively using custom dashboards
Hypothesis: Portfolio visibility becomes increasingly valuable as automation adoption grows.
Dashboard-Driven Expansion
Δ NRR
Net Revenue Retention delta between orgs with business-context dashboards vs. those without
Hypothesis: Orgs that operationalize portfolio visibility are more likely to expand — as visibility reveals the scale and value of automation programs that justify further investment.
🎯

The strongest success signal

This feature is not trying to improve workflow execution. It is trying to help enterprises organize, understand, and manage their automation portfolios through business context. Therefore the strongest signal is not error reduction or retention itself — it is Enterprise customers actively using Scenario Properties inside Analytics to create business-level views of their automation landscape.

Enterprise Maturity Curve — Where Make Stands Today
Capability depth at each stage of automation program maturity

Phased delivery,
immediate value

Three focused phases. Each ships independently and builds on the previous without requiring rework. Phase 1 alone solves the most-voted customer pain point.

0
Phase 0 · 2 Sprints
Subfolders — Hierarchical Organisation for Scenario Portfolios
Introduce a folder hierarchy (up to 5 nested levels) inside the Scenario List. Customers can create, rename, move, and delete folders. Scenarios can be assigned to a folder via drag-and-drop or bulk-edit. Folder structure is reflected in filtering and search across the Scenario List.
Core capabilities
Up to 5 nested levels Create / rename / delete folders Move & bulk-assign scenarios Drag-and-drop reordering Folder-aware search & filter
Why first: Folder structure is the prerequisite for every downstream capability. Without a way to categorize scenarios by department, team, or business process, property-based filtering in the widget builder has nothing to group by. This ships first because it is the data model everything else depends on.
1
Phase 1 · 4 Sprints
Widget Builder — Custom Analytics Dashboard
Ship the custom widget builder inside Analytics. Admins and org owners compose dashboards from configurable widgets: KPI cards, bar charts, and line charts. Each widget is scoped by Scenario Property values (e.g., Department = Finance, Criticality = Critical) and by metric (operations, executions, error rate). Widgets can be freely positioned on the canvas, enabling genuinely custom layouts for executive reporting. Custom date range replaces the current 30-day cap.
Core capabilities
KPI cards Bar charts Line charts Property-based filters & dimensions Custom date range Free widget positioning on canvas Dashboard templates
Builds on Phase 0: The folder structure established in Phase 0 becomes the primary dimension for filtering and grouping. The more consistently scenarios are organized, the more focused and granular the resulting analytics — slicing execution data by department, team, or business process rather than across an undifferentiated scenario list.
2
Phase 2 · 2 Sprints
Dashboard Management — Multiple Dashboards & Access Roles
Extend the dashboard model from a single customisable view to a full dashboard list per organisation. Admins can create, name, and manage multiple dashboards — each serving a different audience or business question (Reliability, Cost, Executive, Governance). Access roles control who can view or edit each dashboard, allowing organisations to share executive-facing views without exposing configuration to all users.
Core capabilities
Multiple dashboards per org Dashboard list in org section Access roles per dashboard

Every claim,
traceable to a source

All major claims in this case study are traceable to one of the following sources. Primary research was collected in 2026.

Make Idea Exchange — "List of scenarios detailed usage dashboard with a longer history"
220 votes, multi-year demand (2022–2026), status: Reviewed. Primary evidence for the reporting and visibility problem. Used to demonstrate community-scale validation of the problem, not to prescribe the solution.
Make Idea Exchange — "Subfolders for Scenario Organization"
600+ votes. Enterprise teams require hierarchical structure to mirror their business organization. Naming conventions fail at 100+ scenarios — a consistent pattern in comments across this and related threads.
G2 Reviews — Make (formerly Integromat)
Average 4.6/5 (324 reviews). Recurring themes in critical reviews: analytics limitations, opaque error reporting, 30-day log retention locked behind enterprise tier. Enterprise segment reviews specifically cite organizational visibility gaps.
Capterra Reviews — Make
Source of the "debugging of the scenario very limited" quote (Make Community thread cited via Capterra reference). Debugging visibility limitations noted across multiple reviews.
GetApp Reviews — Make
Average 4.8/5 (407 reviews). Summary confirms: "operations-based pricing can lead to unexpected expenses." Enterprise-segment reviewers note organizational visibility gaps and cost predictability concerns.
Make Community — Autosave & Version Control threads
Real user quotes on lost work and version control needs, cited verbatim in Section 05. All threads are publicly accessible and dated 2022–2025.
Make Community — Auth & Connector friction threads
Source of the non-admin auth friction and data logging/debugging quotes cited in Section 05. Make officially confirmed the redirect URI documentation error in the MS Teams thread.
Gartner Magic Quadrant for Integration Platform as a Service
Identifies "business process orchestration" and "enterprise governance" as fastest-growing evaluation criteria in iPaaS buying decisions. Vendors rated on portfolio management capabilities are advancing. Used to support the Market Shift section's claim about iPaaS evolving to control planes.
Forrester Wave — Enterprise Integration Platforms
Notes that enterprise buyers increasingly require automation platforms to support operational visibility and accountability functions alongside workflow building. Distinguishes "citizen integrator" tools from "enterprise automation platforms" on governance criteria.
Make Enterprise Page
Documents current enterprise capabilities including SSO, Audit Logs, Teams, Make Grid, and enterprise security. Used to establish the strong foundation already in place and frame the gap as additive rather than foundational.
Make Analytics Dashboard Documentation
Confirms current Analytics capabilities: filters by status, team, folder only; no custom dimensions; columns include operations, executions, errors, error rate, team, folder. No support for filtering by Scenario Properties. Used to document the current state in the Gap Analysis section.
Make Custom Scenario Properties Documentation
Confirms that enterprise customers can define and populate custom properties including text, number, date, and select types. Properties can be filtered and sorted in the Scenario List but do not integrate with Analytics. This is the critical "capability exists, connection missing" finding.
Closing Argument

The problem is not that enterprises cannot build automations in Make.

The problem is that once they build hundreds of them, they lack a way to understand them through the lens of their business.

Enterprise Portfolio Analytics solves that gap by turning existing business metadata — already defined, already populated, already trusted by the organization — into actionable portfolio visibility. It helps enterprises understand, manage, and scale automation portfolios today, while laying the foundation for the broader control-plane capabilities the market is moving toward.

The investment is manageable. The leverage is enormous. The timing is now.

2
new core capabilities
July 2026
Phase 0 target
dashboards customers create
Insight Engine 03 Agents in Grid