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 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

Add a new idea Subscribe
Status Future consideration
Categories Social Program Management Platform
Created by Guest
Created on Jul 21, 2016

RELATED IDEAS

Require support for submission of incomplete applications

The application needs to support the ability to capture applications that are missing mandatory information. Customers can send in partially completed applications in paper form and these need to be entered on the system. Currently, because IEG scripts do not allow users to move on from a page without entering all mandatory fields, partially complete applications can't be submitted. This consequence of this is caseworkers having to manage paper applications outside of the system - this is a security risk and it can also mean that customers don't end up with the right entitlement considering so much hinges on the application date.

We need to support partial capture of information whether that be in an IEG script or evidence in an application case. Perhaps a mechanism for bypassing validations prior to authorisation of the application case.

We need to investigate options on how to resolve the problem but initial thoughts:
Allow users to progress through a script bypassing mandatory field (considering impact on dependent questions based on bypassed information)
At the end of a script, allow the user to submit the script so an applicaton case is created;
Highlight missing evidences through evidence issues (customers should not have to configure this, we should create these automatically based on mandatory unmapped evidence) The main driver for the change is to provide support for paper application on the case worker side. It happens very often that when paper application is entered into the System some of the information that are mandatory in online app are not provided on the paper(for instance signature, Last name, etc). Case workers would like to save that in progress application, request missing information form a client and finish it the other day without the need to re-enter the data from scratch.

Customer Name Minnesota
  • Attach files
  • Sigitas Jakucionis
    Reply
    |     Sep 10, 2021

    Use Case 1: Individual wants to submit incomplete application
    Policy dictates that DHS be able to accept applications which have incomplete information. OOTB and most implementations create mandatory fields in an application to ensure that eligibility can be determined.
    Use Case 2: A citizen submits a paper application and has not provided all information
    When a caseworker attempts to enter information in the IEG, they may be stuck on a page (such as address or person demographics) but do have information such as income, that comes later in the IEG.

    In either use case, the proper flow would be as follows:
    1. Citizen/Worker submits the incomplete application
    2. The information from the application is recorded in the system
    3. The application submission date is recorded
    4. A clock is started which will provide the ability to deny the application after (30/45/90 per program) days if required information is not provided
    5. A notice is sent to the client indicating what information is missing, how long they have to provide it and any pending verifications or potential verifications for missing information
    a. This would be program-specific

    OOTB does not currently have functionality for steps 1, 2, 3 or 5. PD initial solution suggestion is to make all fields non-mandatory but this causes issues when trying to map information from the data store to evidences, if required fields are missing. It also does not support submission of applications after only completing the first page e.g..
    A possible solution is to provide an override mechanism for mandatory field validations to allow progression through remainder of IEG as well as adding a submit button on each screen. An alternative is to have separate motivations for incomplete applications which can support the submission of an incomplete application and request for information.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 5, 2016

    Hi,

    We acknowledge that this is a valid enhancement request. It will be considered for inclusion in a future release of the product. Thank you for your interest in the Cúram product.

    Thanks,
    Eloise O'Riordan, Cúram SPM Offering Management team

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 3, 2016

    Hi Abirami,

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

    Thanks again,
    Eloise O'Riordan, Cúram SPM Offering Management team