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 Not under consideration
Categories Social Program Management Platform
Created by Guest
Created on Mar 5, 2020

RELATED IDEAS

Methods in OOTB Class PDCPerson are not accessible

The State of Missouri has requirements to remove some validations or add additional steps while creation of Person or PDCPerson record for which there is a need to customize curam.pdc.impl.PDCPerson class.
As all the method are private, the State of Missouri's requirements cannot be compliantly implemented resulting in a maintenance burden due to non-compliant implementation.

Team have previously worked around this issue by setting the Replace_superclass as 'yes' to override the following private methods :
createPerson(), createPDCPerson(), assignContactPreferencesEvidenceDetails(), createPDCPersonFromProspect(), validatePersonProspectIdentificationOverlap(), validateAndUpdateAlternateIDs(), validateConcernRoleDetails().

Customer Name Missouri
  • Attach files
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Nov 25, 2020

    Hi Maribeth/Jason,

    We have not received the additional information we previously requested from you that would allow us to fully understand and evaluate your enhancement request. Since we have not received the information within the 30 day timeframe, we are closing this request.

    If you are able to provide the additional information in the future, please open a new enhancement request and we will be glad to review. We do appreciate the time you take to share your ideas with us and utilize your inputs to improve our product offering.

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

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Oct 9, 2020

    Hi Jason,

    Thanks for your reply.

    We had contacted Maribeth the original submitter offline to get more clarity on the business requirement rather than just getting the implementation details. As we never heard back the ticket was closed as per the process.

    The ticket is now reopened as requested. The extra information we are looking for is to understand is why this is needed, what is the business flow where it is getting called/used?
    This helps us understand if there is an alternative approach we can recommend.

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

  • Jason Blackerby
    Reply
    |     Oct 8, 2020

    Hi Shane,

    We responded with the requested additional information back on June 9th. We have been waiting on IBM since then for a response. Please re-open this case and clarify what additional information you are expecting that was not received.

    Regards,
    Jason

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Oct 7, 2020

    Hi Maribeth,
    We have not received the additional information we previously requested from you that would allow us to fully understand and evaluate your enhancement request. Since we have not received the information within the 30 day timeframe, we are closing this request.

    If you are able to provide the additional information in the future, please open a new enhancement request and we will be glad to review. We do appreciate the time you take to share your ideas with us and utilize your inputs to improve our product offering.

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

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Jul 8, 2020

    I've forwarded your comments to our developer. I'll post his response upon receipt.

    Regards,

    Maribeth

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Jun 9, 2020

    Hello. Following is our developer's response to your request for additional information:


    This arises on the process of registering a person which is on creating the participant data case.

    The below methods are modified because of the following requirements

    createPerson() - Person should be registered even if the SSN already exist in the system.

    createPDCPerson() - Same business requirement as createPerson is implemented in this method, Also the system should create a new alternate ID evidence with unique reference number(MEDES ID, Please refer the Screenshot) and this number should not be matched with any other person reference number in the system.

    assignContactPreferencesEvidenceDetails() - The system should have the new attribute 'Language Proficiency' and the value should be defaulted to "English".

    validateAndUpdateAlternateIDs() - As we know the system should allow duplicate identification details, The following validation check should be skipped : ERR_CONCERNROLEALTID_XRV_ID_TYPE_CONCERNTYPE_OVERLAP(The identification details entered already exist for another %1c. Please correct the details or review for duplicate %1c details.)

    validateConcernRoleDetails() - The system should check the validation GENERALCONCERN.ERR_CONCERNROLE_XRV_SENSITIVITY (You cannot alter this client's sensitivity to one that is higher than your own.) only if the custom attribute "safe at home" is set true(i.e. checked) for that person to allow case worker with lower sensitivity to set "safe at home". Please refer the attached screenshot.

    All these methods are private and there is no compliant way to customize the above methods to implement the above requirements.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Apr 20, 2020

    Hi Maribeth,

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

    We have sufficient technical details on this request but not enough on the business requirements. Can we get further information from you on the business requirements here such as what is the business process where this arises? For example, is this part of an intake?

    Thank you,
    Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Mar 6, 2020

    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