PRODUCT MANAGEMENT WANTS YOUR FEEDBACK! - Due date adjustment based on leave scenarios

[NickRouvas]

Hi everyone,

We would like to get your feedback on a use case that we have heard from time to time but never really fully analyzed. It involves users that are overdue due to valid reasons - for example, being on maternity or disability leave. In these cases, the idea is to have some way of treating these overdue assignments a "special" way. We would like to obtain feedback from all of you that have the same need and tell us which option would be most desirable and if our assumptions are correct.

Options are:

1. Provide an option within reports (learning plan, compliance, etc.) to show that the overdue assignments are due to the user being on leave. That way, the records marked with this indicator could be excluded from compliance calculations (if desired).
2. Have the ability to store an additional "adjusted due date" (like a grace period) - this would result in the learning plan showing the adjusted due date to users and supervisors, and reports would show the adjusted due date in addition to the original due date. 
3. Move the actual due date. This would mean that the learning plan and all reports would display a new due date. This would make users appear as if they are not overdue on anything (and obviously alter compliance reports). We are assuming this is not a desirable option.
4. If none of the above matches your expectation, please describe what approach would meet your need.

Questions on the leave scenario:

1. When users go on such a leave, are the records marked as inactive? Or is there a certain employee status used to indicate they are on leave?
2. If moving the due date or calculating an additional adjusted date, what would that adjustment be based on? Would it be based on when a user was expected to return (for example, all assignments would get pushed 30 days after return)? Or would it be based on an offset equal to the duration of the leave (for example, if the user were to be out for 3 months, all due dates would be adjusted by 3 months)?

[Brabham_Marla]

Options 1 and 2 would be nice to have. Question 1. The employee's status changes to leave or disability. Question 2. The adjusted date for us would need to be based on when the employee's status changes from leave to active.

[#3]

Nick, Thank you for keeping us on track and rasing the thought to bounce ideas. Here are my thoughts: Option 1 - Sounds like a good (short term) solution. Depending on how organizations manage employees' status when they are on leave/disability, for example, here at Eisai, we change their Status to "Inactive" so that they are not included in any of the compliance repor. Additionally, the system do not generate notifications to them and their manager. Option 2 - Although it sounds ok but could be resouce strenuous as every leave/disability is different. Also adding a new due date attribute on report could raise flags/eyebrows from auditor/inspectors as often time they are not familair with with the LMS system. This may lead to serious damage/risk to an organization. Option 3 - Moving due dates in not a healty practices exercised in a validated environment unless necessary and proceduralized. It may not be all that bad provided organization can manage to enforce something around leave/disability. I would drop this option. With this said, I guess Option 1 may seems more applicable. I am open to hear more opinions/thoughts. In my opinion, it how organizations manage their curriculum assignment. If fully automated (honestly) then I option 1 works perfect. We have hybrid approach so we often run into issues of losing curriculum. We have a workaround that is in place and use so its not an catastrophic issue for us. - Dhruv Dhruv_Patel@Eisai.com

[Kimberly_Gheen]

Yes, I agree Option 1 and Option 2. Yes, supervisors should see the original due date. Question 1 - status is changed to Leave

[Freeman_LaRae]

We only need to be concerned about "manually" assigned training for individuals "on leave" since all training assigned by AP is removed once their status is changed and they are marked "inactive". We have our system and processes set up to inactiivate individuals on Leave and remove all active registrations assigned by AP. The AP reassigns the training once they return and are Active. Our governance is required completion 30 days from assignment date on each item, so this essentially resets the clock and provides them 30 days to complete training. Unfortunately, the "manually-assigned" training is NOT removed when they are changed to "inactive", the time keeps ticking and can become overdue while they are away and will of course be overdue when they return. Our desire would be to have the countdown STOP when the person becomes "inactive" and restart when they are re-activated or have a separate default either on the system or item level that provides governance for the "grace period" that would trigger once a person's status has been reinstated. It would be great not to handle it as the person showing a false overdue status on a report by using governance up front to avoid it all together. We are working toward assigning as much of our training as possible through AP to avoid this issue.

[Linda_Doherty]

We follow this process - inactivating users so that training clock stops and all assignments are reassigned upon activation with new due dates.

It would be best to avoid any manual updating or relying on any individual to change a due date as this requires too much administrative work.  We also advise users to enter a comment on why an item is completed late so there is a record should it be needed.

[NickRouvas]

Thank you all for the feedback, this is very helpful. It appears that, while there could be some nice-to-have enhancements made, most of you have something working already. If anyone else wants to chime in, please feel free to. We will be monitoring this thread

[Jesus_Gandia_Ga]

Perrigo

1. Option 2 meets our requirements

[#9]

Option 2 for us

[#10]

Hi Nick,

I wanted to provide you the feedback on this topic. 

Provide an option within reports (learning plan, compliance, etc.) to show that the overdue assignments are due to the user being on leave. That way, the records marked with this indicator could be excluded from compliance calculations (if desired).

We utilze the LOA field and inactivate the record temporary. So I like this option but this would only be for manually assigned training items. 99% of our training is assigned using an AP which would take care of the assignment- hence stoping the clock for due dates.

Have the ability to store an additional "adjusted due date" (like a grace period) - this would result in the learning plan showing the adjusted due date to users and supervisors, and reports would show the adjusted due date in addition to the original due date.

I like this option but it would take additional training for end users, managers and auditors.

Move the actual due date. This would mean that the learning plan and all reports would display a new due date. This would make users appear as if they are not overdue on anything (and obviously alter compliance reports). We are assuming this is not a desirable option.

I'm not in favor of this option and from a compliance perspective, this would probably not be acceptable.

Haroon

[Alan_Yang]

@Nick Rouvas Just came across this thread which is pretty old. Has SF made any changes to accomodate Leave scenarios that I may have missed? 

[vickistalvey]

interested, too.

[NickRouvas]

No, we have not made any changes related to this topic.

[Alan_Yang]

Thanks Nick for the update. Is this topic still on the enhancement radar? Does it make sense to reboot this as an enhancement request or is there an underlying reason why this topic was abandoned (ex. awaiting upcoming Platform enhancements etc...)?

[NickRouvas]

@AYang - there were other priorities such as Course Home and Learning Recommendations that prevented us from being able to work on this. It is also not being actively discussed because we are not working on anything but removing Flash dependencies from our Learning administration pages and Suite-wide reporting for the next year.

[Wick_Orley]

We use Option 1 as our employees on leave which are indicated by a Leave status that we just remove from compliance reports. (also answers Q1). However they are always shown as "overdue". We cannot excludes this status from the assignment as this can create a due date that conflicts with our internal policy as they are sometimes entering a new period. We do not have EC.

[vickistalvey]

Nick,

Did SF ever come up with a resolution for this situation?

Vicki