HQ / Field roles + PoC of approval workflow

[LeScruf]

Provisional candidate roles are:

1. System admin - front-end - for user and data management.
2. HQ 1 - Senior Management (Directoral Level) -> view everything; edit nothing
3. HQ 2 - Coordinator & Officers - view all themes across all Ranges for which they are responsible (see below)
4. Range - Range Manager - view and edit their range only for all themes
5. Sector - Sector Manager - view and edit their sector only for all themes, and view (only) the range
6. Beat - Forest Supervisor - view the range in which they work only

Themes are: (we need to work out how to label / structure this, if it's straight-forward to do, otherwise ignore) CFM, inventory, natural forest management, plantations, land use / tree farmers, nurseries, survey, tourism

Job roles and users: Users should be assignable to any one of a pre-created list of job roles by the system admin: these assignments are transferable so that a user with specifc user details can be assigned to a specific organisational role, with them being able to be transferred and assigned a different organisational role (function, range) at any time. Users should therefore be identified by their organisational title / role on the system, which will change from time to time. Thus any log should be assigned to or reported by a user role, not by a personal user identity.

Cascading permissions - 2 can lock 3's edit rights who can lock 4's edit rights on any editable datum, as part of a work flow.

As part of this we should have a global log for all log ons/offs and all edits / creations / deletions to content.

[pcambra]

Land with types (Range > Sector > Beat?) and Sectors contain CFRs.

This relates to geospacial permissions https://github.com/Cambrico/farm_nfa/issues/28, how should we implement the permissions at that level, do we have a "derivative" per land entity? Do we have special fields on the Land type to manage permissions?

[pcambra]

https://github.com/Cambrico/farm_nfa/issues/184 is part of this too

[LeScruf]

For now - just focusing on Natural Forests (plantations to come):

For creating an allocated task (optionally as part of plans) for approval - the work flow should be able to start at any level Sector Manager -> Range Manager -> Coordinator Natural Forests -> Director Natural Forests Officer Natural Forests -> Coordinator -> Director Natural Forests

For creating a budget for an allocated task (optionally as part of plans) for approval - the work flow should be able to start at any level Sector Manager -> Range Manager -> Coordinator Natural Forests -> Director Natural Forests Officer Natural Forests -> Coordinator -> Director Natural Forests

For reporting on the stage of completion of the implementation of an allocated task Forest Supervisor (optional) -> Sector Manager -> Range Manager -> Coordinator Natural Forests

For the submission of reports Sector Manager -> Range Manager -> Coordinator Natural Forests Officer Natural Forests -> Coordinator -> Director Natural Forests

[pcambra]

Two workflows, one for plantations and one for natural forests. (Plan level)

Every log type created on a plan have a workflow.

@LeScruf the information we need is the following:

For Natural plans.

• Planting task -- Workflow name -- Workflow steps (e.g. creation, approval, completion...) -- For each step, who can submit it.

[LeScruf]

• This should be seen as a 'pilot' initiative - focus on the management log / task e.g. https://forests.nfa.go.ug/plan/1/management

• Because the management log has many activity types, this allows a workflow to support many management activities in a standard manner.

• To simplify things, two workflow types can cover the majority of management activities

  1. Natural Forest Management workflow - Field
  2. Natural Forest Management workflow - HQ

• To explain the diagrams below:

  • Step - is the step in the workflow as it moves from beginning to end
  • Log Status - this is what appears here (but with extra added status levels):
  • Submitter - the role submitting the workflow step
  • Approver 1 - the role reviewing and approving the workflow step
  • Approver 2 - the role which Approver 1 has to send the workflow step on to for final approval. This may sometimes be optional (at the discretion of Approver 1) - see Workflow 2 below.

and

The work flow suggests that the follow fields in the management log form should be shifted to the top of the form and stand out clearly in the management log view list:

1. Management activity -
2. Log status -
3. Flags -

So these changes - if they make sense - would need to be created as separate issues.

[pcambra]

@LeScruf could you please clarify these items for me?

• There seems to be 2 different workflows with the same states/transitions, one for "Field" and another one for "HQ", how do these two are applied for the same log? It seems to me that it would be confusing to have different people approving the same statuses?
• Will there be specific screens for the approval workflow? Where would these sit on the menu?
• We definitely need to discuss the percentage statuses. As I don't know what kind of usage we could give to them, so we need to clarify what increasing a 10% actually means.

[LeScruf]

@pcambra - here we go:

1. They are applied for different logs - i.e. either one can be applied for any natural forest log, but they can't obviously be both applied to the same log.
2. I think we need to figure this out - perhaps under the user menu? Let's experiment?
3. Yes - on the one hand I agree with with arbitrariness of percentage completions, but from a management perspective, an indication of how complete an activity is, seems to be of comfort (or alarm) and in popular demand. Again, let's experiment and see how it goes?

[pcambra]

@LeScruf

• Regarding 1, how do we establish to which logs the Field status workflow applies and to which ones the HQ workflow applies?

[LeScruf]

I think a drop down selection? Would that work? So either workflow can be used for any log, but of course not simultaneously? But there could be multiple instances of both workflows for the same log type tho - each a separate instance but for a different activity.

[pcambra]

@LeScruf I need to do some research on whether we can have a dynamic workflow per task/log, we can definitely do it per type of task (activity, harvest, planting...)

[pcambra]

Note: These are specific for natural forests.

Once you change a workflow, you can't change it, so this can be done on creation only.