Skip to content

GLM & SLM Idea Lab

GLM & SLM Idea Lab

Categories

JUMP TO ANOTHER FORUM

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback

935 results found

  1. I have struggled sometimes to find an org or project because I do not type it in exactly as it was done at the outset. Is it possible to have more of a search function that operates like Google to find ones that are closely related?

    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

    Planned  ·  0 comments  ·  Search  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  2. I would like to request that Foundant implement a change log for the eligibility criteria for the opportunities within a Universe. There is currently no way for us as users or you as the host to track changes made. If there is a mistake or issue, we need to be able to know what was done, when, and by whom.

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  3. Is there any way to delete the "Grant Date" field from the denial process? As the request has been denied,there is no grant date.

    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

    0 comments  ·  Dates  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  4. It would be great to have the ability to batch deny requests AND complete any of the prompts on the Denial Form that would apply to all.

    Currently, when we batch deny, the only fields available to apply to all are the decision date and the decision comment, but it would be so nice to have all of the prompts on the denial form for that process available. For example, we have an "eligible to return" question on our Denial Form, and I have to select that field for each request individually.

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  5. Change the symbol of the Integer question type away from a # to something else.

    In our application we ask for percent of people served in our county. We built that question with the integer question type because that was the only question type where we could restrict the entry to two numerical digits.

    But our applicants and reviewers are confused because we are asking for a percentage but the little symbol next to it is the number sign, so it almost looks like we are asking for the raw number of people, not the percent of people.

    See attached

    8 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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  6. Can you create a question bank so that we can easily copy questions that already exist on other forms??

    5 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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  7. Additional standard merge fields available in email templates and the ability to customize / add your own to the forms. We have information that must legally be included in our approval and denial letters which are not available to be merged into the email, so we need to stop and fill in each manually, reducing the efficiency of automation within GLM.

    7 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  ·  Email  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  8. We are manually going into each application and downloading the reviewer feedback and sending it to the applicant. This is very time consuming and tedious. If we could have an automation for the feedback to be available to the applicant on their dashboard that would be very helpful.

    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

    0 comments  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  9. In GLM/SLM on the application allow for an option to require one of two questions. For example: Enter Budget OR Upload Budget. Right now we need to have them both unrequired to allow for one to remain blank but would like to require that at least one of them be filled out.

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  10. Ability to pull a report by the date an evaluation was closed

    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

    0 comments  ·  Reporting  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  11. When an evaluator uses the Process filter on the dashboard, completes and saves an evaluation form, then clicks the Next Pending Evaluation button, the next one may not be from that filtered Process. Please make it so the Process filter pulls through to when the evaluation forms are advance to the next request.

    Also, it would be much better for evaluators if the sort by organization on the dashboard would pull through to when they go into evaluation forms so Next Pending Evaluation button takes them to the next request that is alphabetical by organization name.

    29 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

    Proposed Idea  ·  4 comments  ·  Reviewing  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  12. I just voted on Evaluator batch print function that someone else posted and would also like to suggest a Batch print function for "Your Follow Ups". With a lot of our grants, staff leads assign internal follow ups to their selves to complete verbal reporting with our partners so being able to download/print those batch lists would be really useful vs. viewing/scrolling down a lengthy page.

    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

    0 comments  ·  Batch  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  13. I'm aware we currently have the capability to branch questions off of aggregated table cells (thank you for implementing!). However, any plans in the near future to branch off of any individual cell responses? That would be so much more helpful for us.

    For example, we currently ask on an application for org. leaders' demographic percentages to be entered in a table and one of the categories is "Other historically disenfranchised groups". If they indicate a % in that cell other than 0, a branched text area question appears asking them to name the specific group(s). Since it's required to…

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  14. I think users/members of an organization should be able to make other users in their organization inactive rather than admin having to do it on the backend.

    It appears that a lot of users were ported over from our last system which makes it so the user profiles for many organizations that we work with are outdated. We as admin don't know who's current in their organizations and who is inactive. They know. Additionally, board members and board presidents change roles frequently. It would be helpful if organizations could manage that themselves as opposed to admin having to do that.

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  15. Currently, for a payment to go to a fiscal sponsor from GLM to C-Suite, it was recommended that the Applicant in GLM be the fiscal sponsor and not the organization applying for the grant. This would change the applicant to the Fiscal Sponsor in GLM, moving the record of the application away from the actual applying party. It would be great if there was a way that you could connect a Sponsoring Organization to C-Suite instead of a Sponsored Organization, so that the application record could still be tied to the actual applicant in GLM.

    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

    0 comments  ·  Payments  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  16. I would like to be able to prevent a grants manager from changing answers on forms. Or maybe restrict certain questions. They need access to things that auditors can't access, so I can't use that role. I have customized the grants manager role, but this is not an option. Use case: I have a program officer that may be changing the answer to a question, and we don't want her to do that.

    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

    0 comments  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  17. Each month, our organization has dozens of journal entries that are imported for payroll and other month-end close items. Importing these entries is great as they spread across multiple funds. However, after importing, it's a pain to attach the same file dozens of times for documentation purposes. It would be extremely helpful if there was a button on the "list" journal entry screen (the one that shows all pending or approved entries) to attach a singular file to all selected entries.

    I think this could work similarly to the "Post all" feature available so you don't need to post each…

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  18. I would like the ability to delete pledges with pledge adjustments. Thank you

    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

    0 comments  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  19. In the process manager, there is currently 2 buckets for processes to live:
    -Available
    -Archive

    We'd like to see a third option for processes to live for historical management:
    -Available/Active
    -Unavailable/Inactive
    -Archive/Historical

    We have processes that have gone through several updates over time. It would be nice to keep what we need in Available/Active and Unavailable/Inactive buckets but older version in Archive/Historical that are not so forward facing. Not available on the immediate search area/filter area. A place for historical process to go and live instead of deleting or saving a PDF version on our internal drives.

    It would also…

    12 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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  20. There should be a way to evenly split the applications assigned to evaluators. We receive many grant applications and some reviewers do not have the time to read all applications.

    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

    0 comments  ·  Reviewing  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
1 2 8 10 12 46 47
  • Don't see your idea?