Settings and activity
17 results found
-
6 votes
Meg Hillmann
shared this idea
·
-
60 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Meg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Meg Hillmann
commented
This would be fantastic! I'm using the reporting combine fields function to manually sync fields that are essentially the same questions (e.g. how many of your total served were women) for our six-month reports on three year grants (so six answers to the same question, but different over time). When you've got a lot of multi-year grants it starts getting cumbersome to make any changes and/or sync the way I have been.
Meg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
-
79 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Meg Hillmann
commented
So, thought: very important all these conditions are met, BUT - if
a) you're not using archived accounts to track historic data (i.e. you don't need to know than that the old program manager filled out a report instead of the new one)
b) there's nothing assigned to the account, and
c) you really want to get rid of the account,1. Make a dummy account in your own organization (e.g. we already have one called "Test Person" so we can screenshot and make instructions for live processes without cloning everything over to our sandbox).
2. Transfer the account that you want to delete into your own organization.
3. Merge the two accounts, keeping the dummy account as the information that stays.
-
16 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Meg Hillmann
commented
I would actually advocate for making it "administrator only" - I recently had an issue where we needed to hide a question on a follow-up. I set it to "internal only"; the person completing the report had previously been a reviewer for a completely different process, but still saw and answered the question.
-
24 votesMeg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
-
32 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Meg Hillmann
commented
Piggybacking on this idea, I'd love to see the ability to rotate column headers so that you can make columns thinner and see more of them on the screen (e.g. column headers from screenshot here: http://prntscr.com/r1a7z6).
Meg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesMeg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
-
49 votesMeg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Meg Hillmann
commented
Hey Leslie, we use shared questions to achieve this - not sure if this would suit your needs but here's a sample of a final report section for one of our outcomes for children and youth: http://prntscr.com/nhc5wd
-
20 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Meg Hillmann
commented
I see two huge time-relievers here, especially with the way we're using our system.
1) It would be super-useful when you have organizations with high turnover (so... all of them?) so that every time Agency A has a new grants manager, you don't have to manually spin up a login for them, and they don't start spinning up duplicate organizations to clutter your system with junk.
2) We're rolling out a workaround for getting staff evaluators (community volunteers) in our system (mostly because I manually added over 100 of them by hand in the past six months and would like to not need to do that again in the next six months). One of the steps in our fix was putting all the evaluators in a "Volunteers" organization with a null EIN, so that when we ask new volunteers to sign themselves up, we can say "put in EIN 00-0000000" (because they're unlikely to know their employer's tax ID off the tops of their heads, and we'll be able to easily de-dupe the junk orgs these people will be generating).
That being said, the quickest fix I can see on addressing these issues and the original idea is a group above "Organization Information" on the Create New Account screen that has the same drop-down as the Create New / Edit User pages do (with all available organizations populating). Throw the rest of those sections on a branch based on their answer in there.
They either select one of the pre-existing orgs or say their org isn't in the list.
- If it's not, they fill out all information on that page as usual.
- If it is, they skip straight to User Information / Password.I will say there's probably one extra step you'd want there, which would be to ask the administrator / primary contact at that org to validate the new signup person is really working there? But maybe that's just me.
Meg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Meg Hillmann
commented
So glad to hear it, Sammie, thanks for considering it! Weston's got my email if you ever want to chat about it :)
An error occurred while saving the comment Meg Hillmann
commented
My initial thought had been a batch "Assign Requests" from the Requests and Decisions page, but now that I'm thinking about it, this would probably actually be better as two check boxes in the process assign users area with a column of checks for "Can see data" and a column of checks for "is assigned," that way the administrator wouldn't need to constantly be assigning incoming requests.
An error occurred while saving the comment Meg Hillmann
commented
It seems that the Process Assign Users and the Request Assign Users buttons have different functionality when the Filter assignment setting is active; that is:
• Process Assign Users actually serves to remove data access for an entire process from those grants managers you uncheck, and
• Request Assign Users makes the data show up in the “My Requests” tab.
So right now I have to click through literally every application in our system so that everyone can filter their data vs everyone else’s data, and I'd love to see a way to make all the requests from a process show up in the “My Requests” tab that doesn’t involve manually adding each one?Asking not just for the front-loading of the work, but for scalability where, e.g. we’ve got open applications for Process A and I want all of these requests to show up in Grant Manger 1&2’s Requests, but all the grants managers should be able to see them under “All Requests.”
Meg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Meg Hillmann
commented
This would be very useful for us as well. I was explaining to one of my staff that I turned on side-by-side evaluations, and he got confused when he went to preview the form because he couldn't see it. Populating the empty form as each role will see it would help my staff confirm that the evaluators will see the proper questions when evaluating applications.
Meg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
-
148 votesMeg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
-
65 votesMeg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesMeg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
-
69 votesMeg Hillmann
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Meg Hillmann
commented
I'd actually like to see the ability to copy whole sections; I'm building a form that needs to ask the same set of questions about up to six different schools, and another set of questions about up to ten different people. Being able to make one section and duplicate it six or ten times would save a lot of time in form generation.
Other: text response would absolutely suit our needs; if possible, I'd love to see this functionality on both radials and checkboxes. Use case for checkboxes is that our organization covers a 5-county area, and many of our funded organizations cover multiple counties plus counties not in our service area. Having an applicant check Allegheny and Fayette counties, and then Other: Greene county would allow us to refer them to funding opportunities in Greene county as well.