I'm the product manager in Klaus who was involved in improving and building the assignments feature. I don't qualify as an actual customer using assignments, but if you could elaborate on what you want to achieve, I can help with setting the assignment(s) up in the most optimal way. You can share your use-case here, or, if you prefer, we can set up a zoom call (email me: email@example.com) and discuss it privately.
Based on that info I would say there are 2 options.
The first part is pretty much the same in both cases: Let's say Mart is the name of a QA person handling the reviews and we want to review all users who are in the workspace except Mart.
If you add a name to the reviewees field and check "Exclude" then the assignment will automatically include all workspace users except the names added (you could also manually add all 130 and use "Include" but that would be tedious).
Now the difference is how to set up how many reviews each reviewer will do and how these are distributed between associates (reviewees).
One option, if you really want to be sure that each associate gets a pre-determined amount of reviews weekly (or bi-weekly, monthly depending on what you selected as cycle length), would be:
- "Every reviewer will do 1 reviews bi-weekly per reviewee". If you have 130 associates, then that means that the reviewer would need to do 130 reviews every 2 weeks and each associate would get a review every 2 weeks.
You can play around with the number of reviews and cycle length based on how many reviews the person handling them can manage. With this example setup, the reviewer would need to do daily 13 reviews (130 divided with 10 workdays). If you change the cycle length to weekly, it's 130 reviews / 5 = 25 daily reviews and each associate will get a weekly review.
Another option, if you know that the one person can (for example) handle 50 reviews a week, you can set it up exactly like that:
- "Every reviewer will do 50 reviews a week total"
But, in this case, because 50 is less than 130, not every associate will get a review each cycle. Associates (Reviewees) are then reviewed in sequential order. The next associate is selected from the list following the associate that received the last review. Over the longer period it evens out and everybody gets a more or less equal amount of reviews but it's not the exact pre-determined amount as the first option.
I would also recommend using Complexity condition. This filters out conversations that are too short or simple and finds conversations with the highest learning potential (read more here: Filter out your most complex conversations69).