# Requirements for the Reimbursement and Outgoing Payment Request System ## Overview One short-term goal of the Non-Profit Accounting Project is to create a system that allows (a) members of an organization, and external parties, to submit requests for reimbursement or request for payment like invoices, and (b) the organization's bookkeepers, accountants, and managerial approvers to review those requests, add them to the organization's books, and prepare payment. The primary motivation for this project is to save time both groups spend on handling reimbursement requests and outgoing payments, and reduce turnaround time for these requests, and to help members file complete requests that are easy for bookkeepers to review and accept. Members of the organization could be employees, members of projects represented by the organization, or others doing work to advance the organization's mission—anyone who the organization might want to reimburse or pay. The system should not make assumptions about specific reimbursement policies or invoicing requirements. Instead, it should be possible for a bookkeeper or administrator to define follow-up questions and what responses are and are not eligible for reimbursement or payment. Early versions may require sysadmin-level technical expertise to do this, but ultimately it should be doable by a bookkeeper with appropriate privileges. ## Requirements for first release ### Defining the request form Requests for payment have four states: In Progress, Submitted, Accepted, and Rejected. Administrators can define questions to ask the requestor about the entire request, and about each expense in the request. The system can display forms, validate answers, and record answers for questions with the following types of answers: * Text * Selection (from a list of values) * Number * Currency (We may not need strict validation, but the system must at least understand that different currencies exist, and be able to validate that a currency is specified when needed. Using a plain Number for currency is not sufficient.) * File upload Other types like boolean and date would be nice, but I think they could be expressed with the types above. It is expected that one question about expenses will be the type of expense (e.g., airfare, accommodations, meals, office supplies). The administrator must be able to define follow-up questions that are asked based on the expense type, to request additional information as required by policy. For example, Conservancy requires airfare search results to be attached to airfare reimbursement requests. Requestors should be prompted for this documentation when submitting reimbursements for flights, and not for other expenses. ### Requestor workflow Requestors can log in and see the status of all their requests. They can also create a new request, which starts in the In Progress state. When they view a report, it shows the questions and answers about the entire report, and a list of associated expenses. Viewing a specific expense similarly shows all the questions and answers about it. When a report is In Progress state, the requestor can edit any answer in the report or an associated expense. They can also add an expense, which begins by asking them questions common to all expenses, and then follow-up questions as necessary based on those answers. When an In Progress report has at least one expense associated with it, and all questions have been answered, the requestor may submit the request for approval, along with optional notes about the request. Once the request is submitted, it moves to the Submitted state. Bookkeepers receive an e-mail notification that the request is ready for review, including the notes written by the requestor. ### Bookkeeper workflow Bookkeepers can log into the system and see all requests. When bookkeepers review a Submitted report, they can change the report's state, and include a note explaining why the report was moved to that state (for example, the bookkeeper moved the request back to In Progress because a specific receipt was insufficient documentation). When they do this, the system sends email to the requestor letting them know about the change, including the rationale provided by the bookkeeper. The bookkeeper can export any request to the books. The first release of the software will simply provide an archive that includes all of the request's supporting documentation, plus a `.ledger` file with entries for each expense. However, note that when building this feature in the code and UI, it should be relatively generic. Exporting should remain abstract enough that integration with other accounting systems remains simple and straightforward. Note that even the mechanics could be different; for example, an SQLedger exporter may add entries to the system directly, rather than providing the bookkeeper with a file download. ## Requirements potentially for first release These are features that we would like the system to have, and it may make sense to make them requirements of the first release depending on how it's built. * CiviCRM integration: Many NPOs are already using CiviCRM. CiviCRM integration would provide a familiar interface to users, and simplify system administration for the organization. It may be possible to build the system as a CiviCRM extension. If so, we would get this feature for "free." * Usable without JavaScript: For consistent mission advocacy, it's important that some organizations not require requestors to use JavaScript. For example, Tor browsers typically have JavaScript disabled because it can undermine Tor's anonymity guarantees; organiziations supporting Tor must support these users. It should be possible to submit payment requests without JavaScript. The interface can be enhanced when JavaScript is available. Whether or not we do this in the first release probably depends on what framework we decide to build on. If the framework itself requires JavaScript out of the box, it may make sense to have the first release go with the flow, then work to add JavaScript-free functionality in a later release. In any case, Javascript used will respect software freedom of users and, *if possible*, will adhere to LibreJS protocols. ## Requirements for later releases These are features that we would ultimately like the system to have. We would also like to release a first version as early as possible, to start getting feedback from users and generating more development interest. It's good to keep these in mind when architecting—in particular, we may choose an existing system to use, or framework to build on, based on its ability to support these features. However, they needn't be a focus of development effort for the first release. * Administrator-defined policy validations Some validations we would like to have: * A value from a selection is in a specific subset of values * A date is within N days before and/or after today or a date in another answer * A currency amount is over or under a limit, with automatic conversion as needed * The limit on a currency amount is defined by an outside source - The main case for this is per diem, where many organizations use rates that are determined by another party like the US GSA and updated periodically. These may need to be compounded. For example, an administrator may want to define a policy, "If an employee did not use a preferred airline, and did not travel internationally, it does not meet policy." * Flag non-reimburseable expenses based on policy validations When the requestor answers questions that are outside the policy validations, the system should flag the answer and explain how it falls outside policy. The requestor should still be able to submit the request, but they should be prompted to explain why the request should be fulfilled despite policy problems. * Ask additional questions based on policy validations For example, "If the expense type is office supplies, and the cost is over $50, prompt for a receipt." * Allow optional questions Along with this, policy validations probably need to be extended to address the case of "other question isn't answered" * Additional exporters * Export to SQLedger * [Certainly many more, feel free to add them here] * Richer lifecycle management * Support requests for pre-approval, probably with two states "Pre-Approval In Progress" and "Pre-Approval Submitted." In the Pre-Approval state, the requestor is submitting not receipts or invoices, but documents regarding potential expenses that have not yet been incurred, but for which organization policies require preapproval by organizational management ahead of time. The appropriate management representatives are duly notified by the system of pending Pre-Approval requests, and their approval moves the request into the In Progress state. Their rejection moves the request to the Rejected sate. * A leader may need to approve a request before it's added to the books, like an employee's manager or a program director * Show currency amounts in the requestor's reimbursement currency For example, the requestor can submit a reimbursement with expenses in USD, EUR, and CHR, but wants payment in INR. Unclear what interface for this would look like, but real-time data about past currency rates might be available via an API somewhere, and we can use that to have the requestor give us "preferred currency for payment" so all changes happen in real time in the interface (even allowing the requestor to be able to decide *while filling out the report*: "ugh, these exchange rates to INR are horrible; I'll have them pay my USD account instead"). * Data import * Apps like [Tricky Tripper](http://trickytripper.blogspot.de/) let users track expenses for a trip as they go. The system could import this data to prepopulate answers to questions about the request and expenses in it. Probably there would be an import API that can map different import formats to a common format, and then administrators can define how questions in their system can be answered based on imported data.