Multiple Cell Phone Support in MLS?

[rmrichesjr]

...

These numbers would only be show on the master membership report that would only be distributed to
the Bishopric and Ward Council members.


What are your thoughts on this?

When I (as elders quorum counselor) print "enter home teaching visits" for district supervisors to use to call home teachers to get the report of visits, that report needs to have the home teacher's phone number, not his wife's number. Many other reports need to have the individual number if one is defined.

[russellhltn]

What are your thoughts on this?

It's something we'd all like to see, but it's going to happen only when the church is ready to give it to us.

An impression I got way back in the pre-MIS days, was that the wards don't have the member's records - they only have a copy of it. It's the Church Area Office (for most of us, that's SLC) that has the records. When a member moves, the church sends out a new copy to the new ward and a "destroy" directive to the old one. I don't think that's changed.

I think the issue that's preventing this change from being implemented as quickly as we'd like is that it's asking for a structure change to the main database at CHQ. I've got no idea if this is hosted on a modern db system or a old mainframe app. I kinda got the sense that when we installed MLS that the records may have migrated between two different systems at that time - mostly because the address fields changed.

But at any rate, changing the structure of a mission-critical app and rolling those changes out to MLS in a orderly fashion is non-trivial. It's conceivable that there are already plans to migrate this app and so it's not efficient to implement the changes at this time.

At least this could certainly explain why it's taking so long for us to get our wish.

[lajackson]

It's something we'd all like to see, but it's going to happen only when the church is ready to give it to us.

I fully agree. What do you think would be an appropriate level of reminder? If we quit asking for it, will it never arrive? Or is once or twice a month often enough to keep them working on it?

That's the communications part of the puzzle that is missing. The parable of the woman who importuned the judge teaches a valuable lesson. But I would rather not importune so much that it interferes with the rollout of the feature.

[russellhltn]

That's the communications part of the puzzle that is missing. The parable of the woman who importuned the judge teaches a valuable lesson. But I would rather not importune so much that it interferes with the rollout of the feature.

Good question. I don't know. If we could be assured it's on the list, I think that would be enough.

Thinking about it some more, I think there's still a number of issues. While some people do have cell phones, there's still a number of families that have home numbers. And just because someone has a cell doesn't mean that's the best way to get ahold of them. Some people turn their cells off when they get home. And let's not forget work numbers.

Then there's the issue that just because a few people have my cell for my STS calling, doesn't mean that's how I want to be contacted for other things. Perhaps there needs to be a way to indicate the desired primary means of contact.

And how should the different MLS reports look like? If someone has a home and cell number, what should the HT list look like?

Lots of issues. And members are likely to have different wants and desires with regard to privacy and such.

[Mikerowaved]

All valid points Russel. I would also like to add that unlike most home phones, cell phone plans vary widely among users. My parent's, for example, prefer to carry pay-as-you-go cell phones with rechargeable minutes. Not the kind of thing you want ringing all the time. It would be nice to have these numbers listed, but somehow flag them "for emergency contact only".

I don't know. The more we dive into this cell phone thing, the more complicated it gets. Email addresses for every family member on the other hand... :rolleyes:

[russellhltn]

Email addresses for every family member on the other hand... :rolleyes:

True. But we have that now with LUWS - if we can get them to sign up. I remember an employee indicating there's privacy issues (perhaps because it's a website) as to why the admins can't enter the email. I'm not sure if that's an issue stalling MLS or not.

I'm not sure how useful email would be in MLS since the usual output is paper.

[lajackson]

For MLS, I would like to be able to enter the phone number the individual member would prefer to have used. I do not worry so much for the children (although it should be the same fix), but I need a number to call to reach the husband and a number to call to reach the wife. They are no longer usually the same.

As for e-mail in LUWS, I would prefer an Admin option to flag an e-mail as not valid, causing LUWS to no longer try to send to that address. I do not really care if I can see the e-mail address or not. I just want to be able to turn it off.

The member should be advised that the e-mail address is flagged (and off) the next time they login to their account.

As it stands now, I have to deactivate the entire account to stop a bogus address. That means that I also have to activate it again when the member is ready to change it. Too much interface.

I just need to be able to flag an e-mail address as not functioning. The member should be able to unflag it (if it was correct and just bouncing) or change it, which would also unflag it.

Under the present configuration, I do not use the e-mail feature in LUWS because I cannot control it. I do not use things that cause me grief if I do not have the means of stopping the grief.

[jdlessley]

The telephone issue does not on it's face appear to be unsolvable - at least as long as the database is modified to include more than one telephone field. If you look into any contact management software application this issue has been addressed. It does require several fields to hold all the possible numbers and preferences. Currently MLS uses only one field. This is what is causing all the headaches.

Once MLS expands beyond using more than one field for telephone numbers it is a simple matter of linking a number to a family member and including an identifier or switch with that number that identifies it as public, private, or some other further limitor for output display or lists.

I think this issue is one requiring patience.

[rmrichesjr]

Good question. I don't know. If we could be assured it's on the list, I think that would be enough.

Thinking about it some more, I think there's still a number of issues. While some people do have cell phones, there's still a number of families that have home numbers. And just because someone has a cell doesn't mean that's the best way to get ahold of them. Some people turn their cells off when they get home. And let's not forget work numbers.

Then there's the issue that just because a few people have my cell for my STS calling, doesn't mean that's how I want to be contacted for other things. Perhaps there needs to be a way to indicate the desired primary means of contact.

And how should the different MLS reports look like? If someone has a home and cell number, what should the HT list look like?

Lots of issues. And members are likely to have different wants and desires with regard to privacy and such.

To do per-individual phone numbers, I think the issues and questions are solvable. Adding per-individual phone numbers doesn't make the issues of privacy, unlisted numbers, etc. much more difficult than they already are; at most, it adds a couple more numbers to the mix. What I would propose is that if there is a preferred phone number for general-purpose contact to the family, that number would be in the slot we current use--just as it's done today. If there is a different number that is preferred for general-purpose contact to the individual, that would be put in a not-yet-created slot for the per-individual phone number. If the member doesn't want the number used for general-purpose contact, don't list it but give it out selectively to the people in the ward the individual wants to have it.

The decision of what number to use for a given slot in a given report would be based on the role of that slot. For example, slots on home teaching reports that identify a home teacher would use the individual number if available, falling back to the family number. I would think slots identifying a household to be home taught would use the family number, falling back to the individual number for the head of the household. Visiting teaching reports would use the individual sister's number, falling back to the family number.

Even if there is some disagreement regarding the best number to use for some of the slots on some reports, I would think there would be at least 80% agreement on almost any give report and slot. I would think the decision logic should be documented to help individuals and families decide how to list their numbers. Even if there was only 80% success on getting the right numbers in the right slots on the right reports, that would be a great improvement on what we have now.

The idea for several family-based phone numbers with notations for the purpose of each number is interesting, but I think it would open more controversy in terms of deciding which number to use for which report.

[WelchTC]

These forums are being reviewed by those in charge of MLS. So your ideas and suggestions are being listened to. Please do not feel like they are not. The challenge is that there are several initiatives going on right now around MLS. So progress seems slow.

Tom