Custodian - dual-responsibility (approver) functionality



I have wondered what the Custodian role does. My first thought, was that it could be a role which could approve certain types of actions.

I still think that the Custodian would be the obious type of role for the following feature request:

It has come to our attention that there is a need for a “Approver” function in the manner of “dual responsibility” functionality. That means, if a reciever (or case handler) needs to fx. delete an incoming request, it needs to fx. be approved by a Custodian, before it actually gets approved. That is due to the fact that a Whistleblower might report anything which could be related to fx. the recipient. In that case there are ofcourse be more recipients in the system to work on incoming submissions - but to ensure that a submission (in general) will not be deleted by just hitting the Delete button, a Custodian has to approve the deletion before it is actually deleted.

At the moment we had to deactivate the delete function for all recipients on the system, and rely on the retention period for a submission - but that also means that if any submission which is not relevant or suitable for the whistleblower portal (fx. someone just wants to annoy, complain or basically use the portal for other purposes than what it is intended to) they will not be able to delete submission, and they will have to stay until they are automatically removed due to the retention period.

If the custodian is not the right role for this, then it could be a good thing to add a new role, of the type approver.

Nevertheless, the Custodian or the Approver role/user has to be able to be attached to a specific context, as there might be multiple Custodians/Approvers which has the overall responsibility for a specific context.

Hope this all makes sense. If this is already implemented, where can I find the documentation which describes how to set it up properly. I have only found a very less descriptive information about the Custodian, which when tried to configure, did not work as expected, either because the usage/configuration has changed from an earlier version of GL to the newest available.



Quick answer:

  1. The Custodian is meant only to approve/deny request to access Whistleblower Identity by Recipient (if and only if the Whistleblower Identity feature has been enabled and used in the questionnaire)

  2. To prevent annoying complaint, the way to go is to create structured and well defined multi-step questionnaires (ideally 30 to 50 questions)

  3. To filter submission, you might want to use the functionality of Case Management in the admin interface, using the Intermediate States, Sub-States and Closing states to classify your submissions.

Aside from that, we had multiple requests to introduce “different data retention” period base on the Case Management States, as a way to let you mark “Archive - Annoying” closing state and assign a short data retention period (e.g. 7 days?) .

That’s not yet there, if you need it for a project that have some budget and can sponsor the feature and/or if you can hire a developer to work on it, we would be able to help it out.