Review Folio option for the AR filing flow

[magszymanski]

Lack of a folio field will exclude many law firms from using the AR flow. Anecdotes over the years and in recent research session conclude that not having a folio number for a fling will result in a financial reconciliation nightmare for many organizations.

To encourage the use of this AR filing, research recommends adding this field to the flow ahead of the August and September AR pushes.

Will assign new coop dev to look into work.

[thorwolpert]

We specifically left it out, as they are 100% not the target for using this service.

[thorwolpert]

Our target, the main goal for this work was to onboard the small, single owner company. We don't even support build an account for these large groups

[trishreimer]

I was thinking about this further yesterday after our conversation and do we know if those law firms that are not set up with an account and manage One or a Few corporations will use a basic or premium account?

We have a ticket right now to update and improve the text on the reminder and in the UI to advise those who need a premium account to not use this flow as the target audience here is basic account using bcsc and paying with credit card.

Before we move forward with this change, let's get a bit more data / feedback after the release in September to see if those text changes work or if revisions are needed.

Also after the release in September, If we wanted to pursue this, I think we need to understand what account type legal professionals will need who do not fall under the mass affiliation process, who are NOT set up (& manage ONE or a FEW) and how many out of the 175,000 fall into this group so we can determine if it's actually worth the value or not. This will help us determine priority and if changes are actually needed or if it's best just to do nothing.

Firms like McMillan while super keen to test and work with us, will not use this flow as we will be affiliating all of their corporation for them through the mass affiliation process. Once their firms are affiliated, they will be accessing the AR filing through a different flow which has the features needed, like folio number.

[trishreimer]

We need to figure out something for September though. We are planning to cut over to the new batch job and use this job to send out reminders to all, so access code resets requests may actually be higher than they are today because law firms do not have the functionality that they need to file, like folio. We know that most corps are managed by law firms today.

Without manually manipulating the data daily for thousands of records, I am not sure what we can do at the moment, but we will need to think about this.

[trishreimer]

If we can actually load the 175, 000 corporations into the batch job and have only these corporations receive AR reminders as currently scheduled, We are good. I'm just not 100% sure if we can do this without a lot of data manipulation as this batch job runs daily.

[magszymanski]

Those are my concerns as well. The initiative, from a process perspective, is currently targeting all users (ie all businesses are to receive reminders in their due time, including large firms who represent them). Filers who have existing Premium accounts could technically use the flow, but may be practically unable to due to a lack of a folio field.

After reading your tix comment, Trish, I understand that we are discouraging Premium account holders from using this AR flow. While it solves explaining all of the confusing exceptions and conditions (e.g. Basic vs Premium accounts, folio number, BCSC vs BCeID use and accounts created using BCeID), stating something like "if you are a high-volume filer (e.g. law firm), filing in the new Business Registry is not for you" and then hammering law firms with that same reminder to file in the new system when they shouldn't, may cause a lot of frustration and questions.

Re: finding out who needs a Basic or Premium. The only two ways I can think on top of my head are to run a survey to them specifically asking what they need out of a new account or asking the legacy DBA team to pull information to see if those firms have a BCOL account (likely requiring Premium) and/or subscribed to the legacy Wills Registry (which only requires a Basic account in the new system). The latter doesn't consider that if a firm decides that they want access to Business Search or any of the other services available only to Premium accounts, they won't be able to with their Basic account and will have to create a new new Premium account down the line.

If we know we don't want to target high volume filers, then what if we exclude from the AR initiative any admin email addresses that manage a high-volume of businesses? Yes, it's manual work, but if we set the cut off at 250 for example, then the distribution won't change much week over week, or even month over month

[trishreimer]

I want to avoid any daily data manipulation. I need to check in with Thor on how this batch job works and if it can just select the corps we want

[trishreimer]

If we can select these 175,000 and then remove these high volume law firms and do this once, that would be ideal

[magszymanski]

I typically advocate against manual manipulation as well. In this case, if we were to cap high vol filers at say, 200 businesses managed, that would save 200,000 reminders being sent out to almost 350 law firms over a year's span, so that 17k reminders in terms of a Sept effort?

[PCC199]

@Maribeth-Wilson @trishreimer Does this remain Priority 3.

[trishreimer]

We need to update the entity dashboard, enable the new account options that John is working on, update the UI, then the distribution list for the batch job.

So, yes. Low priority. As this functionality is only needed by bcol clients