Great suggestion. Also I would like the organization first as suggested below

currently when an application is exported to PDF the default naming convention is to list the Project Name first. I would like to be able to customize the name of the file on export. For example, "application-number_Organization name_Project Name.pdf"

It would be very helpful if the organization name was added to, or became, the filename for pdf downloads. We use iPads (staff and board) for site visits and board meetings. When we download the Application Packet, it saves into iBooks for offline access, however we cannot tell whose application we are opening from iBooks based on the project name, and several of our applicants use the same project name.

We hardly refer to our grantees by their project name so especially when we are searching through their Application or even the Evaluation Packet it is unnecessary to have the packet be saved under their project name as a default. We always have to rename them so if the new default was similar to: Organization + Type of packet (Application, Evaluation, etc.) + [Optional] Process name, it'd be quicker to identify what you need.

I can imagine this will be different for every funder. We would prefer to have the print packet (and merges, for that matter) default to the name of the organization, not the applicant or project name. In our programs, each organization can only apply once per year, and we save files with the organization's name and put them in the same folder. But... again, I'm sure everyone has a different preference. If needed, we will just keep renaming our files.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm guessing other funders would benefit from a better naming approach as well. This isn't technically too difficult. However, before we make a change, I'd really like to hear from other users.

I can think of a couple things we could maybe do better. As you suggest, we could include the applicant's last name. We might also include the stage (i.e. LOI, Application, Approval, FollowUp). We could also just include the first 40 characters of the project name, rather than the full project name.

I'll move this idea to "Considering" and look forward to more user feedback on it.

Thanks,
-chris

Print packets are an excellent way to be able to review grant applications offline, e.g., on a plane. However, the GLM implementation for naming the files is quite unwieldy. Our organization deals with medical research grants that have long and descriptive project titles. Unfortunately, when a print packet is created for one of these grants we get names like these:
TestingtheProtectiveAbilityMechanismandStabilityofGuanabenzDerivativesforPotentialUseinParkinson'sDisease-TargetedNeuroprotectiveTherapy.pdfRoleofglutaredoxin2inmitochondrialintegrityanddopaminergicprotectioninCelegansmodelofPD.pdf
I would like to suggest that the human readability of these file names could be improved with two additional simple steps by GLM when they are created for download:
Preface the print packet file name with the applicant's last name.Place a "–" between each word of the project title (the basis for the file name) instead of simply removing spaces and squishing the title together.As a result, the first print packet above would now become (which may still be unreadable to a non-scientist!):
MacFarland-Testing-the-Protective-Ability-Mechanism-and-Stability-of-Guanabenz-Derivatives-for-Potential-Use-in-Parkinson's-Disease-Targeted-Neuroprotective-Therapy.pdfThis way reviewers can easily associate the appropriate print packet with the particular grant they are reviewing in their dashboard by last name and also by the project name.