Print Packet!!!
The change in Print Packet to include EVERY LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION including the Question Number, the Questions, Instructions for the question, all items on the drop downs of a questions, an Answer headline, has made the size of the applications too large, unwieldly and ridiculous! The size of the applications have tripled making it much more difficult to quickly get to the information you are looking for.
This was an idea that was good in theory and HORRENDOUS in practice.
I will not ad an application to this issue, because it is probably too big and will crash the system!
posted June 23, 2011 by Laura Kurzrok, Eastern Bank Charitable Foundation
-
Chris Dahl commented
Hi all,
Thanks for all the feedback and comments. We've significantly improved print packets since this idea and the subsequent comments were posted. As such, I'm going to mark this as "Implemented". There are some other print packet threads in the Idea Lab, so if you have further suggestions, please consider posting under an existing Idea or creating a new one if none of the existing threads match your suggestion.
Thanks again,
-chris -
Ideas commented
Ron (and others),
You bring up a good point. We want to be careful and clear about the Idea Lab. We do have some limitations in terms of pace of development (though we are investing heavily in that area). Many ideas will be discussed here on this forum and the vast majority of them have a ton of merit. That said, we have to do our best to prioritize and work through them one at a time. We are planning on making another forum that contains all implemented Idea Lab items with the thought that you all can see we are listening and checking things off of the list.
We are currently prioritizing the backlog of ideas and I can tell you that print packet improvement is very high on the list. We may break it down to a two phase process. Perhaps one more micro release that incorporates the input we've received thus far, with a more major release down the road that wiould allow one to create their own print packet templates (based on MS Word) so you would have complete control over every aspect of the print packet design.
This discussion has definitely not fallen off the table and we really appreciate your patience as we navigate our way through the maze of priorities for all of our customers. I'm thinking it might help if we were to share at least some of our near-term priorities so there is not a feeling of complete mystery about what's coming next and why. Would you find a bit more visibility helpful?
Thank you for bringing up your concerns and for continuing to comment and work with us on ideas. If you ever feel like you're not being heard, please let me know. That is not the kind of relationship we want with our partners. Your participation and spirit are greatly appreciated. Thank you Ron!
posted September 13, 2011 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technologies
-
Ideas commented
I'm a little concerned that this discussion may have "fallen off the table". The print packet is a necessary element for us, as we use it in a few ways. Right now, we are evaluating the results proposed with those achieved by the programs we have funded. Oftentimes, it is helpful to print out the "reports" produced (in this case, we are using a form in Evaluation) so we can walk through it with the program director. When I did this with one director (over the phone), he was having difficulty finding the questions; he is someone I would have expected to have been able to navigate the print packet pretty easily.
With that in mind, I am hoping that Foundant will act on making the print packet less cumbersome. In particular:
1) The question number (Q1, Q2) is confusing to applicants and volunteers who review applications. They are referencing the question by what they see on the form.
2) Including the word "Answer(s)" is unnecessary and adds to the pages printed out.
Some of the suggestions about creating either a few templates for print packet or giving administrators the ability to create a template that meets their needs are promising. Thanks!
posted September 12, 2011 by Ron Katz, United Way of Asheville and Buncombe County
-
Ideas commented
I am loving all the great comments here so far. I've got a few ideas I'd like to run by our developers and I hope to have some more questions for all of you on this subject in the near future based on what I hear from the devs. Thank you all for being a part of the "team!"
posted July 14, 2011 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technologies
-
Ideas commented
We are very reliant on the print packets at this point. We would love to be able to configure at least the cover page would be helpful. We would like to include the organization's url on this page as well as the contact person's title. The numbering on the print packet is confusing especially when we have alpha headings in the application. I would love to see the numbers gone. I look forward to the day when our grant committees make decisions online using the evaluator component. Going online was a huge jump for us.
posted July 14, 2011 by Erin Baird, Allegany Franciscan Ministries
-
Ideas commented
We have recently chosen to create a mail merge template (using the export data feature within Foundant) that is concise and places the application data in a simple form that evaluators enjoy. I fully understand the point is not to print but like many others have said my grant evaluators want their binders. While exporting the data and doing some modest clean-up prior to printing is required this “extra step” still saves me time and paper over simply printing the print packet in its current form.
posted July 8, 2011 by Carrie Hanson, West & Chaney Family Foundations
-
Ideas commented
Having the ability to configure the print packets would be a huge benefit for us. Although we rarely actually print packets, I still use pdfs of all of the applications with my board and having some control over font size, margins, and what is included would be a major upgrade.
posted July 7, 2011 by Katie Briggs, Laird Norton Family Foundation
-
Ideas commented
Hello All,
Many thanks for all of your comments. I appreciate that funders use Foundant in a variety of different ways. In fact, I believe that the flexibility of the product is the key to its success. I agree with Meredith that much more is necessary. I have now been using the revised applications for over 2 weeks and I do not find it any easier to review applications. There is just way too much information and slogging through is extremely time consuming. I recommend that there be two types of print packages: One would be Package Summary and one would be Package Detail. That way people would be able to choose the package that works for them.
I hope addressing this issue is a top priority because this "enhancement" has slowed our process down considerably.
Thanks
Laura
posted July 5, 2011 by Laura Kurzrok, Eastern Bank Charitable Foundation
-
Ideas commented
I'm very happy that others have responded on this question. It appears that print packets, like many other things, are a critical item for many of you out there. I certainly understand that having some ability to configure them in some way would be very helpful. Keep the input coming.
-raymond
posted July 5, 2011 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technologies
-
Ideas commented
I was one of the people who wanted to include both the header and the question, and both are very much preferred by our volunteers to review our applications. This was the most common suggestion made by our volunteers.
posted June 30, 2011 by Ron Katz, United Way of Asheville and Buncombe County
-
Ideas commented
I agree with Laura -- the packets are more confusing to read now (and waste paper).
Last night's micro-adjustment listing all possible answers in a list as part of the question then listing the selected answer(s) is a good 1st step (thanks Mark).
I would suggest one step further: eliminating questions from print packet view, and including only questions header and applicants' responses.
If we as administrators use the question headings properly when building the forms, it should be clear in print packet view which question applicants' are responding to.
--Meredith
posted June 28, 2011 by Meredith Huffman, Genuardi Family Foundation
-
Ideas commented
I appreciate how responsive Foundant is in addressing the request that the Print Packet include more information. I was specifically interested in Foundant adding the exact question and group headings.
Some of the other information listed, though, could be excluded, as far as I'm concerned. Those items include:
* The question number.
* An answer headline.
* Extra spacing between question and answer
Thanks!
posted June 28, 2011 by Ron Katz, United Way of Asheville and Buncombe County
-
Mark commented
We did a micro-update to GLM last night to eliminate list fields from being printed in the print packets. This was an attempt to fix the biggest complaint we have heard about the new print packets. However, I would like to encourage all of you to continue to suggest other ways we can improve this feature of GLM as it is very widely used by almost every customer.
Thank you,
Mark
posted June 28, 2011 by Mark Larimer, Foundant Technologies
-
Ideas commented
One other quick comment about the print packet. I agree that the size is too large and would really like to see a smaller font and less white space. I know the idea is to NOT print, but we have people that still need a binder (working on stopping this practice though!) When I print these documents, the margins are very narrow and I have to scale each document to 95% to avoid information being cut off by the 3 hole punch. Its just an extra step, but one that might be considered in a revamp of the print packet.
posted June 27, 2011 by Marla Collum, National Trust for Historic Preservation
-
Aaron Spevacek commented
I do appreciate the addition of chracater limits to the packet. I don't know how much we're helping grantseekers if they're not included.
Aaron
posted June 24, 2011 by Aaron Spevacek, Foundant Technologies
-
Ideas commented
Laura,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. While we added the extra information (instructions and list items) based on input from many customers, we have had some pretty strong reactions against this additional information since we released this update on Monday. This tells me we probably need to make the addition of instructions and list item information configurable at the very least. We're in discussions now about next steps. I'll announce our plan here when I know more. Thank you Laura!
-raymond
posted June 23, 2011 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technologies