Settings and activity
30 results found
-
24 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment 
Chris Dahl
commented
Hi everyone,
I don't have an update on this suggestion directly, but I wanted to try to get more feedback around a somewhat related idea - adding an option for applicants to "Abandon" a request (here). I recognize that it won't address the need for a "Withdrawn" status, but it is something that needs more input.
Thanks in advance for your feedback,
-chris
posted September 3, 2013 by Chris Dahl, Foundant Technologies
-
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi all,
This suggestion touches on a couple different ideas that have come up at various times. First, having more "statuses" for a request to be in. I've heard requests to add "Withdrawn" / "Abandoned by Applicant" (for requests that an applicant wants to have withdrawn from consideration), "Rescinded" (to handle cases after a grant has been made but then needs to be, well, rescinded for whatever reason), "On Hold", as well as others. I'll keep the "Failed to Complete" or something similar on the list with these others.
Second, more than a few users have asked or commented on making organizations that are "out of compliance" more evident within GLM (other Idea Lab threads include: flag an organization and alert that an applicant has an active grant).
Both of these themes are on our product road map and come up periodically for internal discussion. Updating our handling of statuses is a fairly major undertaking, and it's not something we currently have planned for a specific time frame. Flagging an organization and/or alerting an applicant are less work, but we won't be considering them until we have first done some work on the GLM user interface. This should make it easier to do a better job of flagging / alerting users within the system.
Thanks for the suggestion and comments. Ideally, some more folks will comment on this thread. Generally, the more comments there are, the easier it is for us to understand the suggestion from more perspectives and make sure we ultimately have as good of an implementation as possible.
-chris
-
35 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi all,
From what I'm reading, there are a variety of opinions about the usefulness of adding Denied (or Closed) requests to the Dashboard. It seems like the biggest motivation (the "why") is simply to get a better picture of overall request management - is that fair to say?
For some folks - say those who only deal with a few hundred (or less) requests a year - this wouldn't be too bad to do. However, we also have users who have tens of thousands of Denied, Closed, and Abandoned requests each year. If simply showing a "count" for each was acceptable, this *may* be something we could look at. However, the impact of making it possible to view a list of these is pretty significant, and in the worst case, could consume a lot of server resources that are shared across clients. Therefore, I'm hesitant to add this without a pretty compelling use case.
Again, you all are the experts on the grant-making side, so I certainly respect where you are coming from. I do want to make sure, though, that whatever we decide to implement really has a high value to a fair number of users.
Thanks in advance for any additional feedback,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi all,
I definitely can understand why people want to see declined and closed requests. I don't want to add items for folks who don't use them, but it would be nice to accommodate people who want to see additional categories.
I'll bring this to our product team and see what the different perspectives there are in terms of priority. If it's not that risky / challenging to add the ability for these categories to be added on a foundation-by-foundation basis, it could be something we look at sooner than later. If it looks like a fair bit of effort, though, it probably won't be prioritized too high given other features / enhancements on the list.
Thanks,
-chris
posted April 29, 2013 by Chris Dahl, Foundant Technologies
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Marla,
Thanks for the feedback. I'll keep this on our radar and hopefully will hear back from other folks who have some opinions on this. Given the fact that this change would be highly visible, I'd definitely like to hear from as many folks as possible.
-chris
posted April 10, 2013 by Chris Dahl, Foundant Technologies
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi all,
First, thanks for the feedback. Just to clarify - are we only talking about Denied requests, or would this include Closed and/or Abandoned (probably in their own categories on the dahboard)? I ask because the initial topic mentions "Denied", Marla mentions "When a grant is closed, it disappears from the dashboard" and Michelle, I didn't see anything specific in your comment. It might seem a bit nitpicky, but the details are really important - and believe me, we even have trouble with them in our internal discussions. So if you could add some details around exactly what is meant, that would help.
That said, at this point given other work we have lined up, this is really not a high-priority item for us. However, as I get a better understanding, I can bring it to our product team and we can determine priority and level of effort.
Thanks,
-chris
posted March 27, 2013 by Chris Dahl, Foundant Technologies
-
96 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi all,
A couple things ... first, some of the work we did this spring with the 5.0.0 release was a prerequisite for looking at this feature. Second, we are currently starting some user interface work that we feel is another prerequisite.
As is evident by this thread, there are definitely folks who recognize the value of this functionality. While we are not at a point to start implementing this, we are continuing to look at the things that this would impact, including the additional complexity it would add to the user interface, reporting, merge documents, configuration, etc. While we have a lot of the individual pieces in place (and it might therefore make it seem like this shouldn't be that hard to do), we have to consider the impact it would have on the system.
Thanks for your feedback, and we'll continue to consider when, and how best, to look at this in more depth.
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Thanks for all the valid input. I've added this to our product backlog. Given other efforts underway and given the complexity of this change (as Raymond noted, Follow-ups are definitely more "ad hoc" than other forms), it's not likely we'll be able to do much in the near-term. However, as we continue to refine how processes can be configured, we will definitely keep these suggestions in mind.
It's challenging (and frustrating) because it's one of those things where we have a lot of the pieces in place to implement this. Without some significant re-work, though, we just can't wire those pieces together to achieve the desired functionality. We certainly try to design things in a way to keep us out of situations like this, but it's not always possible.
Thanks again,
-chris
posted July 20, 2012 by Chris Dahl, Foundant Technologies
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Gloria,
I've only heard this idea mentioned in passing a few times, so at this point it's not very high on our priority list. Part of the reason is that there is some complexity around what the approval or denial of a follow-up report means. While the assignment of a follow-up report to a reviewer would not be hard, this idea has implications for workflow, statuses, and reporting. With an application, it's pretty straightforward - a denial means the application doesn't get approved / funded. But with a follow-up report, I can see there being different interpretations of what a denial, in particular, would mean.
As we move forward in 2013, there are some things we'd like to improve in terms of the evaluator and board member experience in using GLM. If we get more definition and hear more from users about a significant need for this feature relative to other things we are working on, it's something we could take a harder look at. If you have time and feel it's a high enough need, please expand on how you see this working beyond just the assignment portion (which is probably the simplest part).
Thank you for the suggestion, and have a safe and happy New Years!
posted December 27, 2012 by Chris Dahl, Foundant Technologies
-
29 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Thanks for the feedback, Lauren. From what I'm seeing here, and after talking to you a bit at You Fly We Buy recently, it seems like there are 2 types of "batch payment." The first would simply be to create a payment for the full grant amount with a certain date. The second would be more of a grid-like interface where people could enter a payment amount, date, check number, and comments.
We'll definitely keep this on the road map, though before we can consider it in more depth, we'll need to address some significant user interface improvements.
Thanks again,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Lisa and Kara,
From what I understand, Lisa, it looks like your payment process would be very much in line with what I outlined in my overview above - correct?
And Kara, could you provide a bit more detail. You mention being able to ""pay" in one click after I've set all the payments up" ... does that mean that the process and requirements I outlined above would work in your scenario? Or are there some things more unique that we'd need to consider?
While I certainly understand there'd be some big value in this feature for some folks, at this point, it's not a feature on our short-term road map. This is partly because we've not heard it being a big challenge for that many users, and in part because we aren't exactly sure how it would need to work to make the workflow easier for everyone who would want to use it.
If possible, please add some more details around how you'd use it - and if anyone else has some detailed workflow comments, please chime in. I know that it can be frustrating that it takes a bit for some of these features to get into the software (we use a lot of software applications in our jobs here and certainly have some pain points too), but really understanding the desired functionality is critical if we are to implement something that truly meets your needs.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment and add your suggestions,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Kishawn,
We don't have a "Batch Pay" option. When a payment is made, we collect the amount, payment date, check number, and comments. With this much data that will be unique across different payments, it's hard to make this a batch function.
If you have an idea on how this could be a batch function, I'd be interested in hearing it. I'm guessing the only way it really makes sense is if the payment amount matches the grant amount, no check number is collected, the payment date is the same for all, and the comment is shared, and I'm guessing this is relatively rare for most folks. I could be wrong, though, so please feel free to update this with more details when you get a chance.
Thanks,
-chris
posted April 29, 2013 by Chris Dahl, Foundant Technolgoies
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Joan, Mary, and Cindy,
There are a number of suggestions about expanding the information we track at the organization level, including this one. We haven't tackled any of these yet, but they haven't fallen off the radar. I understand how adding an AKA field for the organization would be helpful, but rather than adding a field at a time - which each time can impact exports, reporting, merge documents, etc. - we'd like to find a better overall solution so we can address the need for as many users as possible, as well as provide more flexibility on an ongoing basis. In addition, while I think improving the organization profile is important, we've been continuing to try to improve more core parts of the workflow. It's never easy prioritizing potential improvements to the system, but I hope you've seen ongoing improvement.
So the concept of capturing more organization information and improving functionality around the organization and its profile will remain on the product road map, but it isn't something we'll be tackling in the near term.
Definitely appreciate the feedback on the importance of this idea, and if there are more details you'd to add, please let us know.
Thanks,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Joan and Mary,
Thanks for the idea. I can definitely see where this would be useful. that said, it's not something we're considering doing in the short-term. I know by the dates of your posting that this isn't a "new" idea, but we're working through a number of features and major changes over the next few months. I will make sure this makes it onto our product roadmap, though.
Thanks
posted July 20, 2012 by Chris Dahl, Foundant Technologies
-
48 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi all,
The Follow Up Past Due notification is now in Production as of the 5.8.0 release on Oct. 20. As I've noted, we'll continue to look at adding a notification for Payment Installment reminder.
Thanks again for the suggestions and feedback.
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi again,
Our 5.8.0 GLM release is currently in our Demo environment and includes a Follow Up Past Due notification that will go to the owner of the past due follow up. It'll work like the Follow Up Reminder notification, so shouldn't be too much new anyone needs to learn for it. It's tentatively scheduled to go to production next Tuesday evening, October 20.
We'll continue to look at the payment due notification.
Thanks again eveyone for the input and discussion on these ideas.
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi all,
We are looking at adding an overdue follow-up notification in our next major release. Our thoughts are that this would be sent out the first day after a follow up is due (assuming of course that it's not been submitted). This would be something we could change - i.e. if you wanted to give them a couple days of a grace period, we could change it from one day overdue to three days or something, but it would have to be the same for all the overdue notifications. It would be very much like the follow-up reminder notification in that you could assign it on the Process Manager page to whichever follow-ups you wanted to.
Going forward, as we can rework the user interface a bit, I'd like us to be able to allow you to customize the # of days for all the follow-up notifications. However, for now, trying to make that fit and be intuitive in the existing screens is just too tough.
Thanks again for the feedback!
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Karen,
We have also discussed an automatic email that would go out when a Follow Up is overdue. This would go to the person responsible for filling out the Follow Up. We'll probably be trying to do that before too long.
A notification that would go to a particular administrator to say that any report is overdue is a bit more complicated, and probably not something we'll do anytime soon. I'll keep it on the radar, though.
Thanks,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi all,
This seems like a relatively popular request - I appreciate everyone weighing in.
I think the biggest challenge this will be determining the recipient(s). While it's relatively easy to build it so that the payment reminder email is sent to all administrators, I'm guessing that won't be the right solution for a lot of our clients with multiple administrators and multiple processes.
One option would be to have it as an option when creating an installment. However, that seems like it would require an extra click (or more) for every installment. It also doesn't address cases where a one-time payment grant might have a payment date in the future (i.e. a month after it was approved).
Another option would be to try to add it as a notification option on the "Update Process" page (like where the "To Administrators (when Submitted)" notification is). My concern with this approach would be how to make it clear it's for payments. Would it make the most sense to put it under the Decisions > Approval form? This approach would allow the administrator(s) to be selected on a per process basis.
I will bring this up for discussion internally and see what we can come up with for options. In the meantime, if you have some feedback on the options above, I'd appreciate hearing it.
Thanks!
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Kristen,
Thanks for the suggestion. Do you see this as an email notification, or more like a page that could identify these simply? I think for people with very many installments, emails would start to get "noisy" ...
If you could provide some more details of how you would use this, we could discuss it with other clients and I could see where it would fall on our product roadmap.
If anyone else has comments on this functionality, I'd love to hear them.
Thanks,
-chris -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Karen,
Thanks for the suggestion. While GLM today is not a purely "responsive design" web application, it has run fine on most mobile devices (I've even used my smart phone to access it on occasion). That said, over the next 6-12 months, we are working on changes that will allow us to convert it to a more pure responsive design.
However, regardless of what we do on that front, one of the challenges with GLM is that for a lot of users, it's a very data-intensive application. There is not a lot we can easily do to make displaying hundreds of applications that great of a user experience on a smart phone, for instance. And by the same token, trying to fill out a hundred question application on a smart phone is not going to be that great of a user experience.
So in summary - we will be making improvements in line with your suggestion, but there are some limits on what we will be able to do.
Thanks, and let me know if you have any further questions,
-chris -
8 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Kimberleigh,
Thanks for the suggestion. Basically what you are suggesting is the addition of HTML capability to the GLM emails. While it isn't that technically difficult, if it's not done well, it could negatively impact spam scoring, which would then have an adverse effect on email delivery. In addition, not everyone receives the HTML version of emails, so it's still important that the plain text part is sent as well.
That said, we are currently looking at swapping out the email delivery system we use in the next 3-6 months. The newer system should help with email delivery rates in general. While we won't immediately be adding HTML capability, we will be starting to more actively research it.
-chris
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Cadence,
Great suggestion, and one we've both talked about internally and have heard from other users. At this point, while adding HTML capability to our emails isn't that technically difficult, if it's not done well, it could negatively impact spam scoring, which would then have an adverse effect on email delivery. In addition, not everyone receives the HTML version of emails, so it's still important that the plain text part is sent as well.
That said, we are currently looking at swapping out the email delivery system we use in the next 3-6 months. The newer system should help with email delivery rates in general. While we won't immediately be adding HTML capability, we will be starting to more actively research it.
Thanks for taking the time to make this suggestion.
-chris -
21 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Gayle,
You're absolutely right that the applicant's status page is, at least for a lot of applicants, pretty lengthy. When we initially designed this part of the system, we simply didn't anticipate that applicants would have so many requests to a given funder.
I'm hesitant to just start collapsing each of the requests as that could be confusing for some folks as well. But I have been talking to a number of users about some potential redesigns of the applicant's dashboard. What I would prefer to do is to step back and look at the overall intent and functionality on that page and come up with a design that addresses not just the issues with the number of requests, but also things like being able to more easily see which requests need follow ups submitted, which have been closed and can essentially be ignored, etc.
As we make some changes to the user interface (UI) over the next 6-9 months, we should also start to have more screen real estate to use to implement a better applicant dashboard.
If you are interested in weighing in on potential redesigns, let me know. We obviously can't run every change past every user, but in cases like this where the change could be more significant, I really want to make sure we get some input first.
Thanks,
-chris -
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Chris-Ann,
Thanks for taking time to make this suggestion. Because there can be multiple follow-ups for a given request, it's not as simple as one would think to display the ones marked "Complete."
Some of the changes we are currently working on to improve the report field functionality should help position us to better address some of the feature requests we have for follow-ups:
ability to batch assign themability to review themprovide a better applicant experience around themI'm not sure what we'll be trying to work on first, but they will be getting some attention in 2015.Thanks again for contributing to the Idea Lab.
-chris -
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Lynn,
Both of these roles are now available in Demo, though you will need to contact your CSM to have the Grants Manager (Admin Lite) role added to your site. I realize these don't exactly meet your request needs, but they should give you some options, and with a bit more experience, we may be able to extend reporting access to board members.
We'll have these in Production by tomorrow (July 9). Let me know if you have any questions,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Lynn,
We've discussed adding an Admin Lite and an Auditor role. With these roles, they will have access to reports. We are not going to be able to make reports truly "read only" - people in these roles will be able to create new reports.
We've also discussed exposing the reporting tool to Board Members. Again, given our limited control over some of the details of the reporting tool, if we did this, the Board Members would be able to create reports. I think you're right in that most board members (or folks that are not in the software very much) will not be good at creating reports - however, giving them access would allow them to view the reports you have created.
With both of these, it probably comes down to setting expectations with your board and other users around what they should and should not do in the reporting tool.
I'll try to let you know when the Admin Lite (we'll probably call this "Grants Manager") and Auditor role are available to preview in Demo.
In the meantime, let me know if you have additional feedback or questions,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Lynn,
Thanks for the suggestion and for posting to the new Idea Lab. And thanks for providing some details around which reporting functionality you feel would be sufficient (i.e. standard and saved reports).
This is something we've discussed internally a few different times. It's not yet made it on to the short list in terms of priority, but as we continue to address some more immediate functional needs, and as we have continued to improve the reporting functionality, I believe it will make sense for us to revisit in conjunction with improving the board experience.
Couple questions for you:
Do you think "staff evaluators" should have access?
If we were to add an "Admin Lite" and/or "Auditor" role, would you want them to have reporting access? In these cases would "standard" and "saved" reports be sufficient?Thanks in advance for the feedback. I would also like to hear from other users in case there are different needs out there.
-chris -
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
We had a few more internal discussions on this ... and ff this is just for those requests in an "Abandoned" status, I think it's something we can consider. Given what's on the roadmap the next 6 months, it probably won't happen soon, though.
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Kristen,
Thanks for adding this as a suggestion.
At this point, this is not a high priority feature for us - mostly because there is no "batch undo" for deleted requests.
I will bring this suggestion to our Product Team, but given the challenges around managing expectations for "deleting", I don't think we'll be addressing this anytime soon.
-chris
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Jessica,
Just an update - our Product Team discussed this, and for now, we're going to table it. I expect we'll revisit it as we look more at some user interface updates later in the year. I'll leave it marked as "under consideration" so we don't lose sight of it. I think there's value to making information more readily accessible, and this request definitely falls into that category. There's been other requests for additional information on this screen, so I'm guessing we'll be trying to incorporate a number of those requests when we do decide to update this screen..
thanks again for the suggestion,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Jessica,
Thanks for the suggestion.
I can understand how having this information on the Organization Summary page would be helpful for you. While it's not a big effort, I'd really like to hear from other users before we look at doing this, if at all possible. I'm assuming a label of "Denied (LOI)" or "Denied (Application)" would be sufficient?
In the meantime, I'll run this by our Product Team to see if anyone can think of a reason to not do this.
Thanks,
-chris -
19 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Katherine,
Couple follow-up questions.
First, if we were to add the organization comments to the Organization print packet (and the request comments to the Request print packet), you would get all of the relevant comments in the print packet - you would not be able to select which ones you would include. Would this be acceptable?
Second, if we were to include the comments in the data exports, how do you envision them being included - one column for each comment? Or something else?
Finally, if we just added an "export comments" button on the Request and Organization Summary pages, would that be of any use? Or would it be too disconnected from the rest of the data to be of value?
Thanks,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Katherine,
Thanks for the suggestion. We've made quite a few strides in terms of improving ways to get information out of the system more easily, but as you note, we still have some work to do.
This isn't a high priority item at this point, but I will take it to our Product Team to see if it makes sense to work on as time allows.
Thanks,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Katie,
Thanks for the suggestion, and I'm glad you're finding the new request comments to be somewhat helpful.
One of the challenges with exporting anything that is a "multiple" instance is that there's not easy way to do this without requiring a lot of duplication, which folks also don't like. For instance, there could be N (let's say N=5) request comments .. in that case, we'd have to create 5 rows in the export for the same request ... the only difference being the comment field.
That said, I'd be very open to hearing if you had a suggestion for how to get around this. If you have any questions or comments, or if my comment here is not clear, please let me know. Thanks,
-chris
posted July 28, 2013 by Chris Dahl, Foundant Technologies
-
25 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Katherine,
Thanks for taking time to post this suggestion.
Given other higher-priority work, we're not looking to expand the Shared Documents access to Applicants at this point, especially given the availability of document-sharing sites. At some point, we want to update the Applicant experience within GLM, and at that point, if enough folks thought that applicant access to Shared Documents is important, we could make it part of that effort.
It could be something we do sooner, depending on feedback, but it might be something we limit more in terms of storage. How many documents / resources do you think you'd want to make available to Applicants?
Thanks,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Amy,
One thing we currently have under development is the implementation of another Idea Lab item - namely to make "Uploaded documents viewable by applicant" (http://community.foundant.com/foundant/topics/uploaded_documents_viewable_by_applicant).
I know you've comment on it ... will this address your need?
Thanks,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Amy,
Thanks for the suggestion. At this point, it's not something on our short-term roadmap, but it would be useful to hear from other users regarding how useful they would find this feature.
Also, we have had some discussions around updating the applicants' dashboard. For applicants with quite a few requests, their dashboard view can be a bit busy. Sharing documents with applicants is something that potentially could be a part of that work as well.
It's something that I'll add to my discussion list of our upcoming Summit. I'm slated to have quite a few sessions with users, so there will probably be some opportunity to get feedback there.
Thanks,
-chris
posted September 14, 2013 by Chris Dahl, Foundant Technologies
-
0 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Andy,
At this point, budgeting for future years is not available. Internally, we've had some discussions around improving budgeting functionality, but it's not a high priority, given other features clients are requesting.
I'm sure we'll be improving it at some point, but it won't be in the near term.
Thanks,
-chris -
41 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Julia and Mary,
In regard to the export / report of Charity Check information ... I created a new Idea Lab item "Export Charity Check Information" for further discussion on that topic. Since it's really separate functionality from a Batch Charity Check, I want to try to manage the 2 conversations in their own threads.
Thanks again for the feedback, and I look forward to hearing more details about a report / export.
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Mary,
At this time, we're not planning on adding Batch Charity Check, but as we continue to look at improving the UI (user interface), I think there will be some opportunities to make it easier to verify if a charity check has been run and when.
That said, I think your idea around retrieving the charity check info in a report or in export data is more feasible and probably would be useful for a lot of other folks as well.
Thanks for the input and options,
-chris -
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Rachel,
Thanks for the feedback. I'll have to do some thinking about where it makes the most sense to try to display access to this feature. It's certainly not a trivial effort, but I see the value in what you are suggesting.
Thanks,
-chrisAn error occurred while saving the comment Chris Dahl
commented
Hi Rachel,
Thanks for submitting this suggestion. I've heard some similar ideas every now and then, including http://community.foundant.com/foundant/topics/print_packet_for_a_whole_process. That idea is more about batch print packets, but it's related.
When I saw the title for your idea, I assumed it was an idea for saving (downloading) all the documents associated with a given applicant request, but after reading it, I don't think that's correct.
So to clarify ... when you say you want "a way to export all documents, applications, evaluations, etc. for an org (for each particular process)" ... there's a lot going on there. Examples always are helpful. I read this as saying that you would like the ability to create a print packet for an entire applicant request. This packet would include each form (LOI, LOI Eval, App, App Eval, Follow-ups [if any]) and the documents associated with each form (essentially the file upload questions). Is that correct? And where would you like to access this functionality - the request summary page?
Thanks,
-chris
Hi Karina and Vonda,
Just wanted to let you know that a "withdrawn" option has been suggested in this Idea Lab item: "Need a Withdrawn Category".
There's been a fair bit of discussion on it, and it's something that is on our longer-term product road map. We will probably be doing a revision of statuses as a whole - not just adding a Withdrawn one - as there are other suggestions for additional statuses as well.
Thanks for taking time to make this suggestion!
-chris