2204e09bfe
The project should really include outgoing payments along with it. Submitting an invoice for payment as an external party is really just a "base case" of a reimbursement request. The only complication I can imagine this adds is allowing the general public to create an account on the system, or allow for anonymous submission, which might lead to spam concerns in deployment. I believe these issues should be easily mitigated and will not drastically increase scope of the project. As part of this actual change to the text, some wordsmithing and changes throughout to s/reimbursement/outgoing payments/ and other similar changes are made.
163 lines
7.7 KiB
Markdown
163 lines
7.7 KiB
Markdown
# 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 (e.g., 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 member 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
|
|
* Boolean (yes/no)
|
|
* Selection (from a list of values)
|
|
* Number
|
|
* Currency (this is probably a string that's validated to have a numeric part plus an optional currency code)
|
|
* Date
|
|
* File upload
|
|
|
|
For each question, the administrator can define any number of conditions to
|
|
check against the member's answer. When a member submits an answer that does
|
|
not comply with all of the conditions, the answer is flagged in the interface
|
|
as making the expense non-reimuburseable. The first release must support the
|
|
following conditions:
|
|
|
|
* Boolean: is yes, or is no
|
|
* Selection: the selected value is in a specific subset of values
|
|
* Date: the value is N days before and/or after today or a date in another answer
|
|
|
|
Using these same conditions, the administrator can define questions that are
|
|
conditional on other questions' answers. These questions are only presented
|
|
to the member when they submit an answer that meets the specified conditions.
|
|
For illustration purposes, the common deployment is expected to have
|
|
relatively few unconditional questions about each expense (type of expense,
|
|
receipt, amount), and then a series of conditional questions based on those
|
|
answers (e.g., follow-up questions specific to airfare expenses,
|
|
accommodations expenses, etc.).
|
|
|
|
### Member workflow
|
|
|
|
Members 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 member can edit any answer in the
|
|
report or an associated expense. They can also add an expense, which begins
|
|
by asking them unconditional questions associated with 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 member may submit the request for
|
|
approval. If any of the answers do not meet the administrator's conditions
|
|
for payment, the member may still submit the request, and provide an
|
|
explanation for why the request should be paid (e.g., because it was
|
|
approved in advance). Once the request is submitted, it moves to the
|
|
Submitted state.
|
|
|
|
### Bookkeeper workflow
|
|
|
|
Bookkeepers can log into the system and see all requests.
|
|
|
|
When a bookkeeper reviews a Submitted report, they can change the report's
|
|
state, and include a note explaining why the report was moved to that state
|
|
(e.g., moved back to In Progress because a specific receipt was insufficient
|
|
documentation). When they do this, the system sends e-mail to the member
|
|
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 needs to be abstract enough that
|
|
it's simple to integrate with other accounting systems. Even the mechanics
|
|
may 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 members to use JavaScript. (e.g., Tor
|
|
browsers typically have JavaScript disabled because it can undermine Tor's
|
|
anonymity guarantees.) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Requirements for later releases
|
|
|
|
These are features that we would ultimately like the system to have, but we
|
|
know aren't necessary for the first version. It's good to keep them in mind
|
|
when architecting, but also to know that they've been considered and aren't
|
|
immediately necessary.
|
|
|
|
* Allow optional questions: With this, question conditions 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: A leader may need to approve a request before
|
|
it's added to the books, like an employee's manager or a program director
|
|
|
|
* Automatic currency conversion for validation (e.g., validate that an amount
|
|
in an aribtrary currency is within a limit in USD)
|
|
|
|
* Validate currency amounts from outside data sources: The main case for this
|
|
is per diem, where many organizations use rates that are determined by
|
|
another party (e.g., US GSA) and updated periodically.
|
|
|
|
* 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.
|