Settings and activity
18 results found
-
50 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi all,
In our upcoming GLM 6.10.0 release, we are adding the Grants Manager role to the Shared Documents area.
How necessary is it for the Auditor role to have access to Shared Documents? If you could provide feedback on that, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks!
-chris -
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Kathleen,
Could you explain what you mean by "landing page"? That would help me be able to better respond.
Thanks!
-chris -
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Robin,
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the "Greeting" page. If you mean the logon page, then yes, you should be able to work with your CSM to get a message like this put on that page.
If you're not sure who your CSM is, you can contact support@foundant.com.
Also, we did add information about email deliverability in the GLM 6.4.0 release on April 23. The release notes (in Base Camp) further explain this feature.
Hope that helps!
-chris -
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Heather,
Thanks for the suggestion and for following up!
Is there any reason you can't use the Organization Comments or the Organization Description to achieve this? Just curious - a bit more feedback can help.
Thanks much,
-chris -
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Leslie,
Thanks for the suggestion. We have discussed how we need to improve the applicant dashboard and simplify some things to make it easier for applicants to identify what they need to do next, etc. I'm hoping we can work on this functionality later this year.
I'm merging this suggestion with another that is very similar - it helps me keep track, and I think it makes it easier for users to see the discussion around the idea.
Thanks!
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Hi Helen,
Thanks for your timely suggestion. The applicant dashboard has been a topic of our internal product time for a while now. As we are currently in the middle of overhauling a lot of our user interface architecture, we are considering options for improving the applicant dashboard. We won't be ready to release a change to it for another 4-6 months, but it is something I feel is important.
As we get closer to defining what the changes will be, I will do my best to communicate them to you and others who are interested.
Thanks!
-chris -
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi,
Thanks for the suggestion. Would it be acceptable to if we could configure your site to not accept more than one application from a user/organization within some time period? Or not accept an application if they already have one that is "open" in the system?
Thanks,
-chris -
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Malcolm,
The simplest solution would be for those users to use 2 different browsers. For instance, they could log into one foundation with Chrome and another foundation with Firefox.
Thanks for the feedback!
-chris -
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Karen,
Is there a specific reason you'd like it to work the way it used to? Thanks!
-chris -
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Tom,
You can actually do this already. It's not that intuitive, but when you click on "I suggest you ...", and it takes you to the page to enter an idea (or search), underneath the text box are 5 links:
- Hot ideas
- Top
- New
- Status
- My feedback.
If you click on the Status link, it will give you options of Planned, Implemented, Under Consideration, Not Planned. It won't pick up ideas that are currently in "No Status" (ones that are either new or that we haven't determined where they should end up yet).Hope that helps!
-chris -
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Paula,
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you maybe add some details, or better yet, attach a file with a mockup of what you're envisioning? The mockup could be as simple as just a drawing of what you are thinking it should look like (you could just take a picture of it).
Thanks,
-chris -
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Bob,
Thanks for the feedback. When you say that "It appears Foundant records their denial dates as the dates they were moved into Denial Draft" ... could you add some details?
Currently (and this could be due to some updates last spring) on the Denial form, you enter a "Decision Date." That date - and not the date that something moves into Denial Draft - really should be the date of the denial. That's what I'm seeing in my testing.
I appreciate any more feedback you can provide. Thanks!
-chris -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Dana and Mary,
In our upcoming release - 5.16 slated for early June - this should be done!
Thanks for the feedback - even these small changes are important!
-chris
-
20 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Cathy and Jean,
Thanks for the suggestion. I can definitely see the value. However, from an implementation standpoint, this could get very complex very quickly.
If users could agree on a set of information that we could then add to the Request Summary page, that would help, and would make it more likely something could be done. In the meantime, though, due to the complexity of this request, it's probably not something that we'll be looking at in the near-term.
Thanks,
-chris -
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Alisha,
Thanks for the suggestion. I can certainly understand the motivation. However, the complexity that something like this would add to the system is extremely significant as it would impact everything from building processes to evaluations to how shared questions are handled to print packets to reporting.
We did add something recently, though, that may be of some interest to you. Due to its complexity, it is something that is only available in our "Advanced" product, so there is some additional cost to it. We refer to it as "Copy" functionality, and it basically allows you to copy information from an LOI into a different process (or processes). Based on what you're describing, I think this is far and away the most realistic approach to handling your situation.
While I'd be happy to continue the discussion here if you have more questions, you'd probably be best (and most quickly) served by contacting your CSM or your sales person.
I hope that helps, and please let me know if you have any questions or additional feedback.
Thanks!
-chris -
20 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Jake and Alisha,
Thanks for the suggestion. I recognize that this would shorten the print packet. However, there could be at least one side effect that may or may not be wanted by other users. Basically, if we only include questions where answers have been supplied, it could give some users the misconception that the form is complete. I think there are some other things we'd need to do to make sure that this wasn't the case.
Given other priorities, I don't see us working on something like this in the near term. However, I'd be interested in additional feedback you or other users had as we want to continue to make the print packets more useful.
Thanks,
-chris -
39 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi all,
This is still something we're considering, and we've discussed it a bit internally, which has raised a number of questions. Right now, we still have some user interface (UI) constraints just in terms of how / where we display this.
So, regarding some of the questions we came up with as we discussed this ... we have to dig in a bit to understand what "last modified" means to different users. Is it the last time the applicant modified something? Or if the form has internal or admin only questions, does an update by an administrator count? What about if an admin makes an internal comment on the form? And in reference to Sally's comment about the date/time of the "start" of the application ... is that the "start" for a particular form or the entire request?
Any feedback you have regarding these questions would be great. Thanks!
-chris -
79 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Thanks for the additional feedback. I've talked to a couple people about this in more depth and have a question. Would being able to assign a follow-up to a reviewer (staff evaluator, board member, or an administrator) be useful? The idea is that if an applicant completed a follow-up, the reviewer would then complete their own follow-up that could be used to evaluate the applicant's follow-up.
I know this probably is not the solution that some folks are looking for. However, it's something that is less complex. I certainly don't know if it would meet the needs of the majority of you who have commented on this thread, but it'd be great to hear your feedback.
Thanks,
-chris
We are working on development of this functionality now and expect to have it available this summer. This will either be an Advanced or a Standard feature - we are in the process of deciding that. Thanks!
-chris