14 results found

1. Advanced Data Table - Total Row Validation on dynamic advanced data table sections

   Often times clients want to enforce a minimum or maximum amounts on certain columns such as request amount or match amount on an advanced data table total row. This currently isn't possible without passing the data to a static section. This makes validation tedious and time consuming to configure, but also more complicated for a client to edit and update later.

   One should be able to use validation in the amounts in the total row only such as:
   -Comparing the amount in one column to a field on the grant or linked cycle
   -Comparing the amount in one total column to another on the same section
   -Comparing the amount in one total column to another in a different section

   Often times clients want to enforce a minimum or maximum amounts on certain columns such as request amount or match amount on an advanced data table total row. This currently isn't possible without passing the data to a static section. This makes validation tedious and time consuming to configure, but also more complicated for a client to edit and update later.

   One should be able to use validation in the amounts in the total row only such as:
   -Comparing the amount in one column to a field on the grant or linked cycle
   -Comparing the amount in one total column… more

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   Proposed Idea  ·  0 comments  ·  Administration  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

2. Revamp the Person to Person relationship menu

   I have a couple of clients that are using the person to person relationship in SmartSimple. This is an older feature that hasn't gotten a lot of love/updates and it would be nice if we could update the UI to match the UI we have for Associations. Right now the UI is pretty out dated and it feels clunky to navigate.

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   Proposed Idea  ·  0 comments  ·  Administration  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

3. Enhance Auto Assignment Feature

   It would be nice to be able to use the auto assignment feature as follows instead of having to use workflows and enable this to be used with the contacts tab instead of assigned sf:

   1) When a new user is added in a particular role to the contacts tab of an L1, automatically assign them to the L2s in the contacts tab as a particular role
   2) When a new L2 is created and users from the L1 are set to auto assign to the L2, the assignment is passed upon activity creation
   3) When a user is removed from an L1 in a particular role, automatically remove them from all L2s in the contacts tab as that particular role (unless they should still remain there from another auto assignment role definition

   On a similar strand, if users are assigned in a record on a provider UTA, there should also be auto assignment features that are configurable in the same way to the consumer UTA records (new record, addition of new user, deletion of user)

   It would be nice to be able to use the auto assignment feature as follows instead of having to use workflows and enable this to be used with the contacts tab instead of assigned sf:

   1) When a new user is added in a particular role to the contacts tab of an L1, automatically assign them to the L2s in the contacts tab as a particular role
   2) When a new L2 is created and users from the L1 are set to auto assign to the L2, the assignment is passed upon activity creation
   3) When a user is removed… more

   2 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   Proposed Idea  ·  1 comment  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

4. Enable the copy profile option workflow task to work without the copy button being visible

   Currently in order to use the copy profile option in a workflow, the user that triggers the workflow must have access to the copy button under the new menu in the record. This creates extra menus for external users who don't need to see the copy button when the workflow is being run in the background. This should not have to be visible on the record for the user triggering the workflow in order for the workflow to trigger. This is something for all FHLBs.

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   Proposed Idea  ·  0 comments  ·  Administration  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

5. The ability to batch update Notes

   It is possible to batch update for status, institutions, associated contacts (etc), but it is not possible to do it on Notes.

   Is there something I am overlooking? :)

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   Feedback Needed  ·  0 comments  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

6. Versioning

   Currently, SmartVersioning does not allow you to copy versions you create. You can only create new versions that pull in the base core fields.

   This makes it very difficult to iterate on yearly application form changes.

   The best practice from SmartSimple is to make changes at the Core Field level until it matches what you want, then save those changes as a version. However, this makes it very difficult to manage versions in practice.

   For instance, my foundation has three Level 1 Grant Types and every year we make revisions to the application forms. Last year I created Scholarship Application 2024, but because the application period is very busy we occasionally had to make corrections quickly and it takes much more time to change a record to the Core Fields version, make the change, then push that field forward to the correct version, and change the record back.

   Some changes inevitably ended up just being made in the current version itself and this year for the 2025 version we had to manually ensure all the core fields matched the current version before we could start iterating for this year.

   If we could have simply copied the Scholarship 2024 Version as the 2025 version and made the changes directly within it, it would have saved hours of time.

   Allowing copying of versions would also simplify building across our three grant types.

   Because you can remove fields that are not in use in particular versions, we could have 3 versions that only include the relevant fields for that grant type, reducing confusion and making it a much easier to manager process. This goes double at Level 2 where we have over 10 disparate activities and it can be confusing to know what fields are relevant. Yes, this can be managed with careful planning and numbering on the forms, but with some fields overlapping it is still difficult.

   This would simply require two changes. The ability to copy a version, and an addition that allows you to create new fields within a version that automatically save as core fields and also prompt you on what other versions they should be pushed to (rather than having to switch to the core fields, create the field, then push it to the relevant version(s).

   Currently, SmartVersioning does not allow you to copy versions you create. You can only create new versions that pull in the base core fields.

   This makes it very difficult to iterate on yearly application form changes.

   The best practice from SmartSimple is to make changes at the Core Field level until it matches what you want, then save those changes as a version. However, this makes it very difficult to manage versions in practice.

   For instance, my foundation has three Level 1 Grant Types and every year we make revisions to the application forms. Last year I created Scholarship Application… more

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   Monitoring Interest  ·  0 comments  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

7. Dynamic Visibility should copy over to new System Versions

   Currently, when SmartVersioning is used, it will copy over all the fields in the Core version to the new version. It does not, however, copy over the dynamic visibility. So if the dynamic visibility changes between versions, you have to manually keep all of your dynamic visibilities updated to the newest versions. This is a pain when you have to manage dozens of dynamic visibility fields.

   It would make more sense that, if a dynamic visibility is set to the Core version, that it automatically adds the new version that is stamped from the Core. If fore some reason this can't be done across the board, then at least having a toggle on the dynamic visibility fields to enable copying to new versions would help.

   Currently, when SmartVersioning is used, it will copy over all the fields in the Core version to the new version. It does not, however, copy over the dynamic visibility. So if the dynamic visibility changes between versions, you have to manually keep all of your dynamic visibilities updated to the newest versions. This is a pain when you have to manage dozens of dynamic visibility fields.

   It would make more sense that, if a dynamic visibility is set to the Core version, that it automatically adds the new version that is stamped from the Core. If fore some reason this… more

   6 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   Monitoring Interest  ·  0 comments  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

8. Need to be able to attach an organization to L2 payment records

   We need to be able to attach a payee organization on an L2 payment record that can be different from the org listed on the L1. We've had to create a number of inelegant workarounds in the record and in reporting to get payments to work for our business processes. If it worked like the standard organization field on the L1, that would be the functionality we need.

   2 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   1 comment  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating
   Feedback Needed  ·  AdminMark Bridger (Product Owner, Foundant Technologies) responded

   Would the Level 2 account association be sufficient to meet your needs?

9. Permission Quick Edit: Security Matrix checkboxes for Fields

   It would be really helpful to have the option in the various Security Matrix sections to toggle all the checkboxes on or off across for a particular field, not just down for a Role or Status.

   And as we can do with the 3 dots in the header row to "Copy Row Settings", I'd like to be able to "Copy Field Settings".

   Use Case: I have a similar update I'd like to make to a large number of new fields to remove all the current permissions and replace with updated permissions and need to go through each field and each Status and Role manually. Would be so helpful to just be able to "select all" and delete everything back to a blank slate, and then copy/paste the settings we've updated for a related field.

   It would be really helpful to have the option in the various Security Matrix sections to toggle all the checkboxes on or off across for a particular field, not just down for a Role or Status.

   And as we can do with the 3 dots in the header row to "Copy Row Settings", I'd like to be able to "Copy Field Settings".

   Use Case: I have a similar update I'd like to make to a large number of new fields to remove all the current permissions and replace with updated permissions and need to go through each field and each… more

   7 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   1 comment  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating
   Monitoring Interest  ·  AdminJohn Fulton (Director of Product Management, SmartSimple, Foundant Technologies) responded

   We will monitor interest for future consideration.

10. Give the option to just run a Charity Check report through the GuideStar extension, rather than it pulling the entire "Pro" report

    A recent SmartSimple update included a change with the GuideStar Charity Check feature, where it now pulls a GuideStar Pro report versus just pulling the Charity Check report. I'm not sure if it's just us or if there are any other clients have found this to be burdensome to their processes for a couple of reasons.

    1) It now takes so much longer for the report to be pulled into the record (at least 5-10 minutes). So, it's not as immediate as it once was.

    2) We don't use all of the other information that is in the Pro report. We are just looking for the charity check report to confirm an organization is a 501c3 and would have to manually pull that page from the Pro report for processes.

    We have currently been doing a workaround by going directly to GuideStar and searching an organization to pull their Charity Check report, which defeats the purpose of having and paying for the Candid extension for us!

    A recent SmartSimple update included a change with the GuideStar Charity Check feature, where it now pulls a GuideStar Pro report versus just pulling the Charity Check report. I'm not sure if it's just us or if there are any other clients have found this to be burdensome to their processes for a couple of reasons.

    1) It now takes so much longer for the report to be pulled into the record (at least 5-10 minutes). So, it's not as immediate as it once was.

    2) We don't use all of the other information that is in the Pro report.… more

    5 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Monitoring Interest  ·  2 comments  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

11. SmartFields - change default to Exclude (or allow us to choose our preferred default for our system)

    Can there be a way to choose your system's preferred default for SmartField inclusion? Currently it defaults to Include. Ideally we'd much rather it default to Exclude, or at least give us the option to choose our default.

    The issue is that with numerous system admins making changes or adding fields over time, we inevitably are forgetting to toggle this to Exclude and errant fields then show up in our exported pdf files - that we often are completely unaware of. This could cause a file to being shared with users who should not have access to some of the exported information we did not intend to be "included" as a SmartField.

    We are creating a new UTA and have decided to do a bulk update on ALL new fields to change this setting to Exclude, but only once we're really close to go-live so we know we didn't miss any. Then, when we're ready to create the pdf exports, we'll "opt-in" the specific fields we really want to be included at that time.

    Can there be a way to choose your system's preferred default for SmartField inclusion? Currently it defaults to Include. Ideally we'd much rather it default to Exclude, or at least give us the option to choose our default.

    The issue is that with numerous system admins making changes or adding fields over time, we inevitably are forgetting to toggle this to Exclude and errant fields then show up in our exported pdf files - that we often are completely unaware of. This could cause a file to being shared with users who should not have access to some of the… more

    11 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Monitoring Interest  ·  2 comments  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

12. Custom Fields Permission Quick Edit - freeze top/left headers for Role and Status; add in field Caption

    When we need to update the custom field permissions, the Permission Quick Edit is often unusable. Once you scroll down a small amount, you lose the header row and can't tell what role or status you're changing. Same for when you scroll to the right, you lose the Custom Field column on the far left and have no idea what field you're editing.

    We also usually don't really know the field's name as well as we know the Caption. It would be so helpful to include both the name and caption for reference so you know you're really updating the intended field(s).

    See screenshot of a grid of checkboxes that I can't tell what they are for.

    We sometimes are adding or updating a role and want to compare with another existing role. It would be great if we could drag or reorder the roles to put the ones we want to use next to each other. Or toggle on/off or allow us to "hide" some columns for roles so we only display the role(s) we're interested in seeing at the moment. Similar functionality for Status would also be helpful.

    When we need to update the custom field permissions, the Permission Quick Edit is often unusable. Once you scroll down a small amount, you lose the header row and can't tell what role or status you're changing. Same for when you scroll to the right, you lose the Custom Field column on the far left and have no idea what field you're editing.

    We also usually don't really know the field's name as well as we know the Caption. It would be so helpful to include both the name and caption for reference so you know you're really updating the… more

    •  

    8 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Under Consideration  ·  1 comment  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

13. Ability to Copy/Save As SmartVersions

    We build funding applications using SmartVersions. Sometimes we have a minor update to a SmartVersion we would like to make for a future competition but want to keep the original SmartVersion as well. It would be great if we could Copy or Save As a SmartVersion the same way you can Copy or Save As a Custom Field so we don't have to start from scratch each time.

    3 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Monitoring Interest  ·  0 comments  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

14. Record Lock Override Notification

    When a user is being kicked out of a record, it would be great if they were notified that they were being kicked out.

    13 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Monitoring Interest  ·  0 comments  ·  Administration  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating