Skip to Main Content
Merative Ideas Portal

Shape the future of Merative!

We invite you to shape the future of Merative, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Post your ideas

Start by posting ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted and upvote them if they matter to you,

  1. Post an idea

  2. Upvote ideas that matter most to you

  3. Get feedback from the IBM team to refine your idea

Help Merative prioritize your ideas and requests

The Merative team may need your help to refine the ideas so they may ask for more information or feedback. The offering manager team will then decide if they can begin working on your idea. If they can start during the next development cycle, they will put the idea on the priority list. Each team at Merative works on a different schedule, where some ideas can be implemented right away, others may be placed on a different schedule.

Receive notification on the decision

Some ideas can be implemented at Merative, while others may not fit within the development plans for the product. In either case, the team will let you know as soon as possible. In some cases, we may be able to find alternatives for ideas which cannot be implemented in a reasonable time.

Status Not under consideration
Categories Universal Access
Created by Guest
Created on Sep 6, 2022

Improve readability of Household relationships in IEG (CE)

In CE, on the IEG summary page, the household relationships are confusing to read and understand.


  1. Start the OOTB HCR IEG script, and enter the following four-person household information:

  • Jon - primary applicant, spouse of Jane, parent of Junior, sibling of Jake

  • Jane - additional household applicant, parent of Junior, unrelated to Jake

  • Junior - additional household applicant, nephew of Jake

  • Jake

  1. On the household summary page, review the household relationships cluster information. The relationships are displayed in a manner that is difficult to understand. For example, Jon is the parent of Junior. But because of the order of the information (and headings), it may be incorrectly understood as Junior is the parent of Jon.

Customer Name MN METS
Persona Based Summary

As an applicant, I should be able to visit the household summary page in the application and understand the relationships I have entered in relation to other household members.

Market Segment WH Government
Type of Request Idea
Market Opportunity

Existing customers in both North Carolina and Minnesota have expressed that the OOTB display of the relationships on the summary pages is confusing to read and understand. Both clients have needed to customize the relationship display to improve usability.


Revising the OOTB display of relationships would result in less need to customize OOTB functionality.

Workarounds + Proposed Solution

It would be clearer if the name of the relative appears after the relationship description. (e.g., instead of Jon (heading) > Junior (sub-heading) > Is the Parent of, it could be Jon (heading) > Is the Parent of > Junior)

  • Attach files
  • Guest
    Oct 28, 2022

    it is unfortunate that PD does not feel a need to redesign this but if you can make the IEG relationship renderer a customizable component would be a better alternative so individual projects can take care of it. See the attachment what we are proposing to SC as a patch solution just to improve readability - The text in red box is an additional explanatory text we are introducing to explain who is who in the relationship, by leaving all OOTB fields as is. We could not convince the state why such a design was adopted and why is it so difficult to change it! As you can see the explanatory text were given just to explain the citizen what they entered is correct, but that custom design could have been easily avoided if the member name were displayed below the relationship text.

  • Guest
    Oct 28, 2022

    This issue was one of the first customization request by SC as well when we went over CE integration for their HCR and MAGI programs. The layout of the members name was clearly confusing to most. If the layout is not clear and needs explanation to most folks means it needs redesign. We reached out to NC and MN and found that they also felt the same and they went ahead with some patch work to fix this. We looked at the relationship. IEG components and found that it is core and doesn't really support compliant customization so it cannot be customized. The only patch work we could do was to change the display of the relationship text to make it clear who is who in the relationship while leaving the OOTB rendering of members. Since this is public citizen facing state wanted this to be less confusing to general public.

  • Guest
    Oct 26, 2022

    Please note , this issue was raised by NC as well. I don't think this is specific to HCR IEG. It is how any IEG would display relationship. The workaround should be part of the OOTB solution and it is a valid enhancement request.

  • Admin
    CLAIRE MCGAFFEY
    Oct 21, 2022

    Hi Karlvin,

    We have reviewed your enhancement suggestion.

    Based on the information provided, our understanding of your request is as follows:

    • You are requesting an enhancement to improve the readability and understanding of household relationships when using the HCR IEG script (Insurance affordability) within Citizen Engagement

    We acknowledge the benefit of the proposed enhancement. However, this capability is not generally applicable across our client base and is therefore best addressed internally by each client to meet their specific needs.

    We are closing this request and do not plan to take any further action. Thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with us. We are committed to involving our users in building our product roadmap and appreciate your suggestions.

    Regards,

    Barbara Ridgway, SPM Product Management Team

  • Guest
    Sep 22, 2022

    For some reason the files weren't attached to my previous comment.

  • Guest
    Sep 22, 2022
    1. MN is migrating their HCR script (currently in CP) to CE, and it's expected that it will not be backwards-compatible with CP after migration.

    2. Are you asking what was done to resolve this issue with MN and NC? In NC, several customizations were made to improve understanding of relationships in CE:

      1. Rephrased the relationship question.

      2. Updated the relationship type code table descriptions to match the rephrased question. The original code table descriptions made sense in CP, since the relationship question display included the household member names on either side of the code table dropdown. In CE, it no longer made sense. See attached screenshot of NC's relationship question page.

      3. Added a custom attribute for each relationship to store a clear description, to be displayed on the summary page. Since we cannot customize how the relationships are displayed on the summary page, we added a custom relationship attribute with a clear statement of the relationship. Only updating the code table description was not enough, as the relationship display could still be misunderstood on the summary page. See attached screenshot of NC's summary page (If we only updated the code table description, 'mary' could still be incorrectly understood as the 'Parent' of 'karlvin').

      MN is following NC's approach with 2c.

  • Admin
    CLAIRE MCGAFFEY
    Sep 22, 2022

    Hi Karlvin,

    We have reviewed your enhancement suggestion and require more information to properly understand the issue and the business scenario you are trying to support.

    Based on the information provided, our understanding of your request is:

    • When using the HCR IEG script (Insurance affordability) within Citizen Engagement, the household relationships are displayed in a manner that is difficult to understand.

    We have the following additional questions:

    1. Do you expect the HCR script (where you are seeing the problem) to work in both the UA classic portal & the CE Responsive app?

    2. Can you share what you did to get this script working locally on CE? Our understanding is the problem is being caused by the codetable being used for relationships. So we are wondering did you change the underlying codetable & update the mappings etc. Or did you do something different? (Note not to be included in response: From a process perspective, consider implementing “5 whys” to get to root issue if needed.)

    Please provide the requested information within 30 days so we may proceed with our evaluation. If we do not hear from you within that timeframe, we will have to close the request due to insufficient information.

    Thank you,

    Barbara Ridgway, SPM Product Management Team.

  • Admin
    CLAIRE MCGAFFEY
    Sep 12, 2022

    Hi Karlvin,

    Thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with us. We are committed to involving our users in building our product roadmap and appreciate your suggestions.

    We will review the information you have provided and get back to you within 30 days. If additional details are required to complete our evaluation, we will send you a request for more information.

    Thank you,

    Barbara Ridgway, SPM Product Management Team