State of Missouri have a requirement to customize method UserProvidedVerificationItemKey newUserProvidedVerificationItem

Hi Jason,

We have reviewed your enhancement suggestion. Based on the additional information provided, our understanding of your request is as follows:
Events to be raised at the end of newUserProvidedVerificationItem() and newUserProvidedVerificationItemAndAssociatedEvidences() so that you can move your code into listener classes and try to reduce the maintenance burden introduced by a previous vendor when they decompiled and modified OOTB code.

The theme is aligned with our current multi-year strategy for our product and we have accepted your suggestion as a consideration for a future release. Not all items under consideration will make it into a release. As plans are confirmed, you will be notified when a specific release includes this enhancement.

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,
Shane McFadden, SPM Offering Management team
You can find more information on the request process here.

Hi Jason,

Thank you for providing the additional information requested. Within the next 30 days we will review the details you have provided and inform you of our analysis and decision.

Regards,
Shane McFadden, SPM Offering Management team
You can find more information on the request process here.

Hi Shane,

Please find the code sample attached as requested.

Kind regards,
Jason

Hi Jason,

We have reviewed your enhancement suggestion again based on the extra information you provided 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 for events to be raised at the end of newUserProvidedVerificationItem() and newUserProvidedVerificationItemAndAssociatedEvidences() so that you can move your code into listener classes and try to reduce the maintenance burden introduced by a previous vendor when they decompiled and modified OOTB code.

Could you please provide a code sample showing your usage of newUserProvidedVerificationItemAndAssociatedEvidences().

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,
Shane McFadden, SPM Offering Management team
You can find more information on the request process here.

Hi Shane,

With apologies for the delayed reply, I think you are correct. It looks like this class was used to facilitate the implementation of Reasonable Opportunity in Missouri. Looking at the history of these changes it seems they were made prior to Reasonable Opportunity being available OOTB.

Now, we are trying to make the Missouri codebase as compliant as possible with the IBM Curam development guidelines. In an ideal world this would mean migrating to the OOTB Reasonable Opportunity implementation, and in an ideal world we would the budget to do so. Unfortunately, we are neither living in an ideal world nor have the budget for migrating to the OOTB Reasonable Opportunity implementation and all the testing that would be involved.

So, here we are, asking for events to be raised at the end of newUserProvidedVerificationItem() and newUserProvidedVerificationItemAndAssociatedEvidences() so that we can move our code into listener classes and try to reduce the maintenance burden introduced by a previous vendor when they decompiled and modified OOTB code. Is this an idea that Curam PD could entertain?

Best regards,
Jason

Hi Maribeth,

We have reviewed your enhancement suggestion. Based on the information provided, our understanding of your request is as follows:
* Ability to customize method UserProvidedVerificationItemKey newUserProvidedVerificationItem to include processing on evidence (e.g. end existing evidence and create new or create new evidence if it doesn’t exist).

These needs appear to arise to support the implementation of reasonable opportunity functionality. Reasonable Opportunity is already supported out-of-the-box https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/search/Reasonable%20Opportunity%20Period?scope=SS8S5A_7.0.10 and it is unclear why this approach cannot be used.

We are closing this request and do not plan to take any further action. If you believe we have misunderstood your request please respond within 7 days with clarifications.

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.

Shane McFadden, SPM Offering Management team
You can find more information on the request process here.

Once again I'm not able to attach an attachment to the RFE. I've sent a message to Shane with the attachment. I included my personal address to make sure the message is sent outside the environment. My personal account received the message.

Shane, please confirm that you received the attachment and that it can be attached to the RFE.

Thank you,

Maribeth Kane

Hello. Following are comments from our developer.

Requirements on newUserProvidedVerificationItem() method (while adding new verification item for the evidence)-

If the evidence type of the user provided verification item is SSN or Citizenship on a integrated case and the verification item type is "90 days reasonable opportunity verification item", End date the existing "Reasonable opportunity evidence" and create the same evidence with start date as current date

If the above conditions are met but "Reasonable opportunity evidence" doesn't exist in the system, create a new "Reasonable opportunity evidence"

If the evidence type is SSN/Citizenship but the verification item type is not 90 days reasonable opportunity verification item,

Find all the existing "Reasonable opportunity evidence" and "Reasonable opportunity tasks" for that case in the system and end date and close them.

Please find the attached zip file for more information.

I've sent the attachment mentioned in my comments to email address 'shane.mcfadden@ie.ibm.com'. If the attachment is not received, please let me know.

Thank you,

Maribeth Kane

Hello. Following are comments from our developer. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Requirements on newUserProvidedVerificationItem() method (while adding new verification item for the evidence)-

If the evidence type of the user provided verification item is SSN or Citizenship on a integrated case and the verification item type is "90 days reasonable opportunity verification item", End date the existing "Reasonable opportunity evidence" and create the same evidence with start date as current date

If the above conditions are met but "Reasonable opportunity evidence" doesn't exist in the system, create a new "Reasonable opportunity evidence"

If the evidence type is SSN/Citizenship but the verification item type is not 90 days reasonable opportunity verification item,

Find all the existing "Reasonable opportunity evidence" and "Reasonable opportunity tasks" for that case in the system and end date and close them.

Please find the attached zip file for more information.

Hello. Following are comments from our developer. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Requirements on newUserProvidedVerificationItem() method (while adding new verification item for the evidence)-

If the evidence type of the user provided verification item is SSN or Citizenship on a integrated case and the verification item type is "90 days reasonable opportunity verification item", End date the existing "Reasonable opportunity evidence" and create the same evidence with start date as current date

If the above conditions are met but "Reasonable opportunity evidence" doesn't exist in the system, create a new "Reasonable opportunity evidence"

If the evidence type is SSN/Citizenship but the verification item type is not 90 days reasonable opportunity verification item,

Find all the existing "Reasonable opportunity evidence" and "Reasonable opportunity tasks" for that case in the system and end date and close them.

Please find the attached zip file for more information.

Hi Maribeth,

We are waiting for the response to the question below posted on April 27th.

We typically want to understand if the requirement could be met in some alternative way in order to evaluate if the request is valid.
Therefore where you say "to meet the state requirements", we would need more information than that.
What is the requirement you are trying to achieve?
This might give us more insights as to whether this is a requirement that might be relevant to other customers that we should put into the product.

Thank you,
Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team

Hello. I'm checking on the status of this request. There's been no updates since this was submitted on April 21.

Thank you in advance for the update.

Maribeth Kane

Hello. I'm checking on the status of this request. There's been no updates since this was submitted on April 21.

Thank you in advance for the update.

Maribeth Kane

Hi Maribeth,

In order to evaluate your request, we require that you provide more detail so that we can fully understand your requirements.

We typically want to understand if the requirement could be met in some alternative way in order to evaluate if the request is valid.
Therefore where you say "to meet the state requirements", we would need more information than that.
What is the requirement you are trying to achieve?
This might give us more insights as to whether this is a requirement that might be relevant to other customers that we should put into product.

Thank you,
Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team

Hi Maribeth,

Thank you for your enhancement request.
We require some further analysis to determine whether or not this enhancement can be considered in a future release.
I will provide another response when our investigation is complete.

Thank you,
Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team