AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies)

My feedback

  1. 32 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    19 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    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

  2. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Under Consideration  ·  5 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    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

  3. 4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    Hi Daniel,

    Thanks for the suggestion. Do you see this email as going to the primary contact of the organization? Or is there something else we'd need to do to determine which user(s) should be addressed for this type of email?

    Thanks,
    -chris

  4. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    Hi Chuck,
    Thanks for the feedback. Would a message that simply says something like "There are no programs that match that access code." work?

    -chris

  5. 78 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    29 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi Everyone,

    I hope you are doing well! While this request has been out here for a whole we have read all of your comments are starting to dig into defining this functionality.

    As move of you know we have moved to an iterative approach to development. As we do this we want to make sure that the first piece of the functionality we deliver will be useful and will deliver value. This is where I could use your help.

    As look to develop this first round of tabling/grid questions or biggest questions are around reporting expectations. Once, data has been entered into the solution via grid how will you be using it? How does it need to come out of the solution.

    We will be actively engaging in this conversation over the next month(s). So please chime in and keep subscribed as I will continue to post the requirements…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    Hi Charise,
    Thanks for taking time to add this suggestion. It is one we've heard before from a handful of clients, and we've discussed it internally a bit as well. On one hand, it doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to do. However, it has some significant and complex implications for everything from building forms to validating inputs to storing data to reporting.

    Keeping that in mind, we've been focused on more features that are either less complex or benefit a pretty broad cross-section of our user base. And given what we have heard, things like email merge, more flexibility in collecting user and organization data, more CRM type functionality, more customized views of data, etc., continue to be higher priorities for more of our users.

    All that said, this suggestion is something that I'm sure we'll continue to track.

    Thanks again for the suggestion,
    -chris

  6. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    Hi Karen,
    Is there a specific reason you'd like it to work the way it used to? Thanks!
    -chris

  7. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    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

  8. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Planned  ·  1 comment  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    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

  9. 86 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    53 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi Everyone,

    I am moving this request back to under consideration. It definitely still on our radar, and probably in year to 18th month time frame.

    Right now we are trying to decide if just auto assigning the follow ups solves the batch issue. We definitely understand not wanting to touch every great. I would love to understand more the pain point and scenario for follow up batch assignment that everyone is trying to solve.

    Best
    sammie.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    Hi Cheryl,

    Thanks for the feedback. While I think we added a lot of value with the "Auto-assignment" of follow ups, I recognize that we didn't get all the way to where everyone would have liked us to be.

    Over time, we'll be continuing to add additional batch functionality. However, we'll be doing this relative to other priorities we have. At this point, there are quite a few things we'll be tackling before we be looking at batch assignment of follow ups. So while it will remain on our longer-term road map, given the other priorities and the feedback about it at this point, it's not something I expect to see us working on in the next 12 months or so.

    Thanks,
    -chris

  10. 17 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    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

  11. 13 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    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

  12. 35 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Under Consideration  ·  16 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    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

  13. 64 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Under Consideration  ·  52 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    AdminChris (Admin, Foundant Technologies) commented  · 

    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

Feedback and Knowledge Base