Chris Dahl

My feedback

  1. 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

    Under Consideration  ·  1 comment  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chris Dahl supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    Hi Jim,

    Thanks for the detailed information as well as the research you were able to do. I certainly agree that's a frustrating experience. We're currently in the middle of trying to get our 3.4.0 release out the door and finishing the specifications for the 3.5.0 release, so it's a bit hectic. But assuming 3.4.0 doesn't engender much support, our Quality Assurance engineer should have some time after the release to look at this issue a bit. While he might not be able to fix the issue, he may be able to identify some steps to help with the export from GLM into Excel. And in any case, having him spend some time on the issue is going to be a necessary step before we can begin to slot this into a release.

    I'll bring this up to discuss with our product team in the next week or so and we can go from there.

    Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. Thanks,

    -chris

    posted March 27, 2013 by Chris Dahl, Foundant Technologies

  2. 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

    4 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    Hi Kim,

    Thanks for taking the time to submit this idea. We have focused a lot on making GLM more user-friendly for administrators, and to some extent applicants, and we definitely want to continue improving the user experience for evaluators.

    We are working on making some significant architectural changes to GLM - changes that users won't notice, but that will position us to build a more robust user interface. One of my longer-term goals as part of this work is to support a more flexible reviewer experience

    That said, there are some technical - and user experience - challenges to what you're suggesting. First, if we try to do something in-line and display the contents of uploaded documents, it's likely that users will lose their place as they are scrolling through document content (some uploaded documents are pages long). Second, not all uploaded documents can be displayed easily in the browser, and trying to resize them on the fly could negatively impact the reviewer's opinion of the application.

    One thing we are tentatively looking at is trying to display the application and the evaluation forms side-by-side. Now, this is a longer-term goal - I'll be happy if we can do some version of this in the next 12 months. And by itself, it does not address how best to display all types of documents. Another option is to display a PDF version of the request on one side, and the evaluation form on the other side. However, we're not yet at a point we can evaluate how doable this is.

    So ... to sum things up - we're looking at better options, but there is nothing short-term that I can say we'll be able to do. I understand that's probably not what you're wanting to hear, but I want to make sure we set realistic expectations. And I also want to make sure, to the extent possible, that you understand some of the options we are considering, as well as why.

    I hope this helps; I'll be interested in what others might have to say. Thanks!
    -chris

  3. 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

    6 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    Hi all,

    This isn't on our short-term road map, but I'd like to get a better idea of what you're requesting so we can think about it appropriately. So just so I'm clear - do you mean the "Request Documents" that are on the Request Summary page? Or do you mean files that are uploaded in response to questions? And would your expectation be that the document name(s) are "clickable" in reporting so that you could open them from there?

    Thanks!
    -chris

  4. 11 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

    Under Consideration  ·  20 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    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

    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

  5. 59 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

    17 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Mariah,

    Thank you for weighing in on the other side of this suggestions.
    Do you want to control adding people OR if there was an email to the site administrator when a change was made would this be helpful in your situation?

    thanks
    sammie

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    Hi all,

    First - we're trying to make a number of incremental improvements across the board. Second, I agree with the suggestion. Our first - and in my mind, more important step - is to capture more information regarding changes to organization information, so that it is more readily available to administrators. Once we can do this, we'll be looking at additional options for applicants to update organization information (primary contact, creating contacts, etc.).

    Thanks for the discussion,
    -chris

  6. 52 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

    16 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi Michele and Pele,

    Thank you both for your thoughts full feedback. We have heard this request before, and are looking at how we can make the follow accessibility and editing easier for applicants.

    Do you believe increasing font size would be enough? Or do you have other thoughts on how to make this stand out to your applicants?

    Best
    Sammie

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    Hi Lisa,

    Thanks for taking time to make this suggestion. We actually used to have it say "Complete", but we got a lot of negative feedback on that as well. Even if we make it a button, I'm not sure that it would be that clear.

    Our slightly longer-term solution is to try an overhaul of the applicant dashboard. This is dependent on us first spending some time working on improving the user interface, but what I envision is an applicant dashboard that more clearly indicates "in process requests", "decided requests", "follow ups in process", etc. I'm not 100% sure on what that would look like, but I think we have some real opportunities to improve the applicant experience.

    I look forward to being able to make some changes, though it will probably be in the 6-9 month time frame. Thanks again for the suggestion!
    -chris

  7. 26 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

    Under Consideration  ·  21 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    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,
    -chris

    An 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

  8. 65 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

    Under Consideration  ·  53 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    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.
    -chris

    An 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

  9. 19 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

    8 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    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,
    -chris

    An 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,
    -chris

    An 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. 102 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

    Under Consideration  ·  28 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    Hi all,
    As we have improved a lot of the base GLM functionality, more folks are asking for a variety of batch-type work flows (batch approval, batch payments, and batch print packets). All of these things are still on our roadmap, but we have some things we need to complete before we can start looking at these in more depth. Primarily, we need to take some steps to modernize our user interface. Being able to take advantage of new user interface code libraries, having more screen real estate, etc., will help us to be able to more effectively support increasingly complex functionality.

    I don't have a time-line for the topic of this thread (a print packet for a whole process), but it won't be until we have done some of the user interface work we've planned for the first half or so of 2016. That said, we will be looking at what this feature will require and thinking about how exactly we can implement it. On one hand, it's not an overly challenging technical feature, but on the other hand, it is a fairly demanding feature in terms of how it uses our server resources. Therefore, we need to make sure that we implement it in a manner that won't negatively impact server performance for all users.

    Thanks for the feedback - I definitely can understand how this functionality would help, and I look forward to us being able to address it.
    -chris

  11. 18 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  ·  17 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    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.
    -chris

    An 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.
    -chris

    An 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!
    -chris

    An 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,
    -chris

    An 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!
    -chris

    An 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

  12. 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

    7 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    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

  13. 94 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

    58 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi Everyone,


    thank you all for those of you that reach out to me and let me interview you around your needs with this functionality.  


    these conversations helped us to scope what we think is a great first version of this functionality.  We will be continue to implement and plan this work in the start of 2022 so i will continue to keep this thread updated. 


    -sammie


    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    Hi all,

    And by "all" I mean quite a few folks! This is one of the most popular items in the Idea Lab in terms of comments, followers, and "me toos". Given the interest, I wanted to provide an update on a feature that we are calling "Auto-assign follow ups". We are working on this instead of a "batch assign" feature for a couple reasons:
    we can do it much more quicklywe think it should greatly reduce the need for "batch assign" (for new approvals)it'll allow folks to assign follow ups directly from the approval page (whether or not they use the "auto-assign" part of the feature")At a high level, the feature will work as follows. For each follow up form on a process, you will be able to mark it as "Auto-assign" if you wish. If you do so, you'll be able to set its "Due Date" in a couple ways. We may add more, but for right now, the 2 are:
    "static" (a fixed date)"dynamic" (a date calculated from a response to a required date form question - like "Decision Date" on the approval form)For a concrete example using a "static" approach, imagine a grant cycle with a fixed end date of June 30 with these 3 follow ups:
    Grant Agreement (due July 15)Interim Report (due Sept. 30)Final Report (due Dec. 31)When you approve a request for this process, a pop up dialog will appear with these 3 follow ups listed, the due date defaulted to the above dates for each, and assigned to the applicant. You'll be able to edit any of that information if you wish, or just click a button and proceed.

    For a concrete example using a "dynamic" approach, imagine a rolling grant cycle (that accepts requests throughout the entire year) with these 3 follow ups:
    Grant Agreement (due 21 days after the Decision Date)Interim Report (due 90 days after the date the applicant indicated in a "Project Start Date" question)Final Report (due 365 days after the date the applicant indicated in a "Project Start Date" question)In this case, if you approve a request and set the Decision Date to June 30, the Grant Agreement will show as being due on July 21. If the "Project Start Date" is September 1, the Interim Report due date will show as November 30, and the Final Report due date will show as August 31 of the following year.

    In both cases, you'll be able to edit the follow up due dates and assigned person at any point.

    I wanted to describe this feature under this Idea Lab thread as you all may have some input on it. Feel free to offer more feedback - I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts.

    Thanks again for the comments you've already added,
    -chris

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    Hi Beth,

    Thanks for taking time to post this suggestion. If you can find the similar suggestion, could you post the link here? I couldn't find it, and it would be handy to be able to cross-reference it.

    You're correct in that this functionality does not currently exist. Part of the challenge to this is that the follow-up is assigned to an individual. While in most cases this is the applicant, that's not always the case. I'm guessing you'd always want the follow-up to be assigned to the applicant, correct? In that case, we'd need to not just add the batch capability for this, but also customize the "Add Follow Up" user interface to allow for an "Assign to Applicant" option ... which also complicates the back-end logic.

    We've also not seen a lot of demand for this feature relative to other features (Email merge, improved date handling, etc.), so it's hard to justify moving it up the priority list. That said, we've built out a lot of batch functionality, so this is something we will continue to consider as we look at additional batch functionality to implement.

    Thanks again for posting this, and please let me know if you have any feedback or questions.

    posted September 3, 2013 by Chris Dahl, Foundant Technologies

  14. 14 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

    8 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    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

  15. 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

    6 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    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

  16. 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

    Under Consideration  ·  5 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    Hi all,
    I don't disagree, but at this point, we're really limited on the UI side. It's something we'll explore as we are able to do some UI rework.

    Thanks,
    -chris

  17. 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

    Under Consideration  ·  9 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    Hi all,

    We have not yet implemented batch print packet functionality. It's on the radar, but it's not a minor effort. At this point, we have other higher-priority work to get through, but we are continuing to evaluate where this falls on our road map.

    I'll try to keep people posted when this moves up the priority list.

    Thanks for weighing in with comments - that definitely does help us as we are considering different idea lab items.
    -chris

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    Hi Emily,

    I appreciate you taking the time to add this suggestion to the Idea Lab.

    This is a challenging suggestion ... if a client only is talking about 10 or 20 follow-ups, it's not that big of a deal, but some clients are dealing with hundreds of them. Trying to download all the attachments - depending on how many file upload questions were on the follow-up - could generate a document that is 100's of MBs to over a GB in size and might take hours to download.

    We have talked internally about how to do some type of "batch print packet" that I think would help address your issue. It's not trivial, though - we still need to figure out what kinds of limits we put on it and how we deliver it.

    I'll try to keep you posted on future discussions we have regarding this functionality. In the meantime, if you could provide a few more details around your usage of such a feature, I'd appreciate it.

    Thanks,
    -chris

  18. 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

    Planned  ·  4 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    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,
    -chris

    An 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,
    -chris

    An 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

  19. 6 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

    Under Consideration  ·  11 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chris Dahl commented  · 

    Hi all,

    There are a couple different ideas here.

    First, the concept posted by Amy Moore: "Can you alert the person trying to make a whole new account that there is already an account with that Tax ID and then not let them continue but require that they are added on as a user to that organization instead of alerting me after the fact?" is also the main point of these two Idea Lab items:
    https://community.foundant.com/foundant/topics/duplicate_organization_profiles" rel="nofollow">Duplicate Organization profiles

    Thanks for the good dialog here. If we can get the comments a bit more focused on some of the specific topics, that would help me in terms of tracking the details of these different ideas. If there's anything more I can do to help facilitate this, please let me know.
    -chris

  20. 6 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

    Under Consideration  ·  6 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    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,
    -chris

    An 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

← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base