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,
Post an idea
Upvote ideas that matter most to you
Get feedback from the Merative 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.
Merative External Privacy Statement: https://www.merative.com/privacy
Hi all, I had some further discussions today with the Scottish Government client with regards to this. They would like an update in relation to the hook point being provided, as the number of denials are now starting to increase significantly in live running. If we are no further forward, they have indicated that they will be adding further custom code to support their initial custom solution. Thanks.
Hi Jason,
We have reviewed your enhancement suggestion.
You requested an enhancement to introduce a supervisory approval process using approval checks functionality into the lifecycle of an application case when an application is recommended for denial. We do not intend to incorporate this capability into our product as it does not align with our product strategy. However, based on your input and our analysis of the functionality, we recognize that it is not possible for the application case lifecycle to be customized in a compliant manner in order to meet your requirement, and are accepting as an enhancement request the provision of a hook point to allow you to implement this requirement in a compliant manner.
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
Sorry for delay. Looking closer, in fact we had to create our own customizations on the back of an earlier RFE, 139691, where we wanted to control evidence broker processing. We customized the initial ApplicationAuthorisation/ProgramAuthorisation points, using new facade classes which we use to carry out a number of project specific checks and validations. We then customised the underlying OOTB class
curam.commonintake.authorisation.facade.base.ApplicationAuthorisation. (also customised the deferred process that eventually gets called, DeferredAuthorisation and ApplicationAuthorisationHelper).
We believe it may be the ApplicationAuthorisation (or Program) OOTB class where an OOTB feature for % approvals could live.
Also the RFE, 139691 was delivered in 7.0.11 to provide a hook for AES, but this didn't quite meet our requirements hence our customisation is still in place. let me know if any more required.
Hi Shane, sorry for the delay in responding to this. We are looking into where the hook point is, and will update ASAP.
Hi Jason,
We have reviewed your enhancement suggestion and require more information to properly understand the issue and the business scenario you are trying to support.
We have the following additional question:
What logic/hook point do you understand is present here, do you have the fully qualified API name or have you a reference to some documentation that describes this?
We just want to ensure that we are referring to what you understand is the hook point and provide feedback based on that.
Thank you,
Shane McFadden, SPM Offering Management team
You can find more information on the request process here.
Hi Jason,
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 in order to complete our evaluation, we will send you a request for more information.
Thank you,
Shane McFadden, SPM Offering Management team
You can find more information on the request process here.