Location Matching
In symplr Contract, each user is granted permission to access contracts and workflows based upon their assigned locations and roles.
Locations determine which contracts and workflows a user can see, while roles determine how a user may interact with those contracts and workflows.
Full location matching
When symplr Contract was first released, a system called “Full Location Matching”, or simply “Full Matching” was implemented. Full Matching works by comparing the parent node of a user with the parent node of each contract or workflow. The parent node is the highest-level location node that both the user and the contract or workflow have in common. By comparing the status of the tick-marks on the parent nodes, symplr Contract determines if a user should or should not have access a given contract or workflow.
Through feedback from our customers, we discovered that there was some significant disadvantages to Full Location Matching and, in 2021, we delivered an improved method that we call Partial Location Matching.
Partial location matching
In Partial Location Matching, or simply “Partial Matching”, just one overlapping location enables a user to access a given contract or workflow. This simplified approach is much easier for our symplr Contract administrators to understand, and is much faster for our system to process.
Since 2021, we have been implementing all new symplr Contract customers on Partial Matching. However, some customers who went live prior to that time are still utilizing Full Matching.
Given the long and successful track record we have with Partial Matching, we will be transitioning all customers to this model in the coming months.
Reasons for transition
Partial matching is far more intuitive. Our support team frequently received questions about permissions from customers using full matching.
Partial matching is significantly faster because it takes less processing time to check permissions. The longer the list of contracts or workflows being filtered, the greater this advantage becomes.
Full matching frequently required admins to grant users permission overrides for specific contracts or give users broader location permissions than what was necessary or ideal.
When a tenant makes the transition from full to partial matching, it will not cause any user to lose access to contracts or workflows they could could previously access.
The transition will not affect permission overrides.
Partial matching in practice
Example 1
Adam Smith has access to four Oncology departments.
The contract also is associated with the same four Oncology departments.
Adam Smith has access to this contract.
Example 2
Adam Smith has access to only one Oncology department.
The contract locations overlap with Adam Smith’s single location.
Adam Smith has access to this contract.
Note: In legacy, full matching permissions, Adam would not have access to this contract.
Example 3
Adam Smith has access to only one Oncology department.
The contract locations include both Oncology and Radiology in Carolina East.
Adam Smith has access to this contract.
Note: In legacy, full matching permissions, Adam would not have access to this contract.
Example 4
Adam Smith has access only to Oncology in Carolina Care/Carolina East.
The contract locations are all in different Entities and Sites, so there’s no overlap.
Adam Smith does not have access to this contract.
