Ideas Portal

Board Pack

Single PDF file of the board papers for a particular meeting:

Feature Overview MoSCoW
Cover Sheet

Cover sheet with document title, meeting title, meeting date

M
Agenda First page is detailed agenda of the meeting M
Table of contents List of all the documents with hyperlinks to where they are in the file.  May be an option to use the PDF bookmarking tools. S
Header Header to contain:  Organisation name : Meeting Title + Documents + Date, Agenda Item number S
Footer Footer to contain:  Powered by BoardPro and page number. S
Interest Register Interests register to be an attached page of the BoardPack, tied in to the Interests Register agenda item S
Minutes of the Previous meeting Copy of the PDF of the minutes of the previous meeting(s) tied in to the Confirm Minutes agenda item M
Papers not linked to an agenda item At the present all papers are linked to an agenda item, but in the future some papers may only be linked to a meeting.   These papers would appear after the agenda item papers.   C
Action Items Action items from previous meetings to be included  tied in to the Action Items agenda item. S

 

 MoSCoW System of feature evaluation:  

  • M = Must have (cannot release without it)
  • S = Should have (important, but could be released as a fast following feature)
  • C = Could have (good idea, but the feature will work without it)
  • W = Would have (in an ideal world...)
  • Guest
  • Sep 12 2016
  • Shipped
  • Attach files
  • Guest commented
    10 Oct, 2016 02:04am

    One last thought on DRM (well is there ever a last thought?)

     

    We would make DRM an optional fee for service, however it might be easier to always use the DRM packaging and encryption solution for the distribution of all Board Packs, but they only get the DRM features like timed access, no printing and document revocation if you pay for it.

     

    This would mean that DRM 'management' would be a feature of (say) the CEO or Admin profile, where they choose what functionality they wanted to implement. (and pay for)

     

    I'm assuming that DRM functionality is a feature of the document, so if a director was using BoardPro for several boards, the 'features' would be unique to each board pack, as generated by our system for that company profile, as opposed to the features being applicable to a 'user'.

     

    Regs

    Brendan 

     

  • Guest commented
    10 Oct, 2016 12:39am

    Finally (for now)

     

    Locklizard.com supports a free PDF viewer that is part of the solution.  They have clients for:

     

     

    http://www.locklizard.com/pdf_security_viewer/

     

    This I think may also help with formatting and searching - Anyway it looks good.

    Brendan

  • Guest commented
    10 Oct, 2016 12:31am

    Kim 

    One more thought - ideally it would be helpful if the ability for a director to access the encrypted board pack via their password 'expired' after (say) 30 days.  This would prevent them and everyone else from attempting to hack the password to the board papers after 30 days if their laptop or iPad was stolen or lost.

    I note that the Dept Ed RFP wanted the ability to remotely 'delete' board packs - this is only possible with a DRM system - more on this in a moment...

    Consequently, the ability for access to be denied to anyone after an agreed time frame, i.e. 30 days would definitely enhance security.  

    The director would simply log in and download another copy if they wanted to view it subsequently.  Assuming they were still a director, which is really another way of preventing former directors from still accessing board papers that they had previously downloaded.

    There is one PDF encrypted DRM system that does everything we need (above) called:  http://www.locklizard.com/pdf_security/

    Annual license fee USD $2,495 or a perpetual licence (on own server) $6,495.00

    There may be competing solutions.  The nice thing about this is that you can prevent printing of PDF's (a security risk) time limit their viewing, and immediately revoke a PDF document, or if you have enabled it to be viewed off line, immediately revoke when it is attempted to be opened next while on-line.

    I'm not sure if it will do automatic versioning, but if it can that would be useful also.  :-)

    This would add so much to the security narrative around board packs that I'm of the opinion that it is a 'must have' and is within the price frame that makes it affordable for us also.  You would need to discuss with Brett obviously, as this is not something we have explicitly placed into the Road Map, but it is a very desirable feature of the board pack.

    Kind regards

    Brendan

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Guest commented
    9 Oct, 2016 09:28pm

    Hi Kim,

    I have been reflecting further on the features required for the board pack (version1) and wondering if we might include encryption as a feature, assuming that the board pack is going to be emailed out to board members. 

    Ideally, the password for the board pack, would be the same password members use to log into BoardPro.

    I'm conscious that security is top of mind for many companies, and I note that in the Depart. Ed. RFP for Schools that was sent out earlier this year security features as a requirement.  

    Can this feature please be added for consideration?

    Many thanks

    Brendan 

  • Guest commented
    12 Sep, 2016 04:08am

    Hi Kim,

    Thanks for the opportunity to comment and provide feedback.  I like the feature set and the way you have prioritised them to make it easier to understand.  I appreciate that everything is a tradeoff, features vs time.  My first thought is that ideally we choose a board pack automation tool set / process that will allow us to 'go the full distance' even if we don't implement every feature first off.  This seems preferable than having to change methodology or tool sets in order to obtain the more difficult 'features' down the track.

     

    My second 'thought' is that once we have / you have decided on a base 'go to market' board pack, and estimated the time it takes to develop, it would be helpful to know how much additional time the other features might take if possible.  This would enable us to make a time / cost decision about what we ultimately include or leave for later.

     

    That said, I obviously agree with the 'M' feature set.

     

    Second, I'm not sure how the "Links in Agenda" feature differs materially from the "Table of contents" feature. Could they both use the PDF book marking tool? If not then I'd love to see the 'table of contents feature in the initial release.

     

    With respect to the 'S' features, I'm indifferent about including the Interests register every time in the board pack.  It is rarely referenced in any event, and I'd be happy just knowing it is on-line and available for a Director / Trustee to check.  In an ideal world, only changes or updates might be included?  But of course that adds another layer of complexity, and I'd be just as happy for the onus to be on the Director to declare that they have added additional interests to the register.  In short, I don't believe it is needed at all in the board pack.

     

    I'd be inclined to escalate the previous minutes status to an 'M' rather than an 'S' as they are always referenced in the meeting and should by rights be available.

     

    If there is a feature I haven't directly referred to, then I'm not passionate about it being there in the first release, unless I have seriously misunderstood something (which is of course entirely possible!)

     

    If you could have a think about this and perhaps we can discuss further?

     

    Kind regards

    Brendan