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.
Questions on the leave scenario:
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.
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.
@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.