idea

Idea Brief: Budget Reloaded (BUR)

Epic: TP-2501 Initiative: TP-1869 Budgets and Services Code: BUR Status: Draft Created: 2025-11-06 Updated: 2025-11-06

Overview

The current budget interface presents significant cognitive load and workflow friction for care coordinators managing NDIS packages. Users struggle with supplier attachment, funding stream selection complexity, unclear coordination settings, and scattered UI patterns. Budget Reloaded reimagines the budget experience with supplier-rate card integration, exception-based funding defaults, prominent coordination display, and unified UI patterns that reduce cognitive overhead while increasing transparency.

Problem Statement

Care coordinators face multiple pain points when managing budgets:

Supplier Integration Gap: Cannot list suppliers in budget pivot tables or attach them to bookings. Rate cards exist in isolation without flexible supplier workflows (plan rates, expose rates, then add supplier later).
High Cognitive Load: Every budget requires selecting funding streams from scratch. No defaults exist, forcing coordinators to make repetitive selections. Service totals and save buttons occupy persistent screen space.
Unclear Coordination Settings: Coordination loading and co-contribution categories are buried in UI. Coordinators cannot quickly see “This is Coordinated by X for Y%” without hunting.
Inconsistent Funding Stream Display: Current UI shows funding period data but lacks human-readable context (“last quarter for this funding”, “6 week period”). The spent vs forecast representation uses 3-bar patterns without interactivity, creating visual noise.
Scattered UI Patterns: “Add Plan” floats separately, package metadata uses prominent key-value pairs inconsistently, and action buttons lack unified placement.

These issues slow down budget creation, increase errors, and frustrate experienced coordinators who repeat the same selections across hundreds of budgets.

Proposed Solution

1. Supplier & Rate Card Integration

Enable supplier listing in budget pivot tables
Support supplier attachment to bookings
Implement flexible rate card workflow: plan rates independently, expose rates without supplier assignment, then add supplier and inherit their rate cards
Decouple rate planning from supplier selection

2. Exception-Based Funding Defaults

Establish DEFAULT funding streams per service to eliminate repetitive selection
Funding stream selection drives available dates automatically
Surface “use alternative funding” only as exception case
Reduce funding stream dropdown to Services Australia-approved options only

3. Prominent Coordination Display

Show coordination loading in collapsed budget state with service total
Display “This is Coordinated by X for Y%” prominently in budget header
Create dedicated modal for “Choose Coordination Loading”
Elevate co-contribution categories to modal pattern for clarity

4. Human-Readable Funding Context

Display funding period info: “last quarter for this funding”, “6 week period remaining”
Improve “Funding this quarter” to show $, %, Daily in unified format
Represent spent vs forecast as single data point: “spent $60/day forecast to reach $600 by end of quarter”
Remove non-interactive 3-bar patterns to reduce visual noise

5. Unified UI & Workflow Patterns

Move “Add Plan” into dropdown or input group (remove floating button)
Add “Suggested Plan” category with care partner workflow
Create unified action tray on right side for all buttons
Simplify package metadata display (created by, commencement date/quarter, last modified) with consistent key-value pattern
Collapse service total + save button to reduce persistent screen clutter

6. Enhanced Notifications & Export

Email notifications following CMA Activity style (familiar pattern)
Expand print options via dropdown (future iteration)

Benefits

Reduced Cognitive Load: Default funding streams eliminate 80% of repetitive selections, coordinators focus on exceptions only
Faster Budget Creation: Unified UI patterns and collapsed states reduce clicks and screen scanning time
Improved Accuracy: Supplier-rate card integration ensures correct rates are applied when suppliers are added
Better Transparency: Prominent coordination display and human-readable funding periods increase stakeholder confidence
Flexible Planning: Decouple rate planning from supplier selection, enabling forward planning without blocking on supplier decisions
Consistent Experience: Unified action tray and metadata patterns create predictable interaction model across all budget workflows

Owner & Stakeholders

Owner: William Whitelaw (Lead)
Consulted: Patt
Primary Stakeholders: Care Coordinators, Care Partners, Support Staff
Influenced by: Bruce, Beth, Tim (UX/Product feedback)

Assumptions

Services Australia funding streams are well-defined and stable enough to establish defaults
Rate cards exist in current system and can be extended to support supplier attachment workflow
Coordination loading percentages are stored and accessible for display
Package metadata (created by, commencement date, last modified) is tracked in current system
CMA Activity email notification pattern exists and can be reused

Dependencies & Risks

Dependencies

TP-2293 (Critical): Closely coupled with supplier/rate card concerns. Rate card updates cascade into budget rebalance and plan resubmission workflow. Changes in TP-2293 directly impact supplier-booking attachment implementation.
Data Model: Supplier-booking relationship schema must support attachment workflow
Funding Stream Data: Requires analysis of current funding selections to establish intelligent defaults
Rate Card System: Must support flexible supplier attachment (planned rates, exposed rates, inherited rates)
Coordination Settings: Access to coordination loading and co-contribution data
Notification Infrastructure: Email system capable of CMA Activity-style notifications

Risks

TP-2293 Coupling Risk (HIGH): Changes to rate card behavior in TP-2293 could require rework of supplier attachment logic. Close coordination required between epics.
Complexity Creep: Supplier-rate card workflow has multiple states (planned, exposed, attached) - requires careful UX design to avoid new confusion
Default Accuracy: If funding stream defaults are wrong for edge cases, could create new errors
Migration Effort: Existing budgets may need data migration to support new supplier attachment model
Stakeholder Alignment: Bruce, Beth, Tim feedback needs validation with broader coordinator community
Scope Expansion: “Future print options” and advanced filtering could inflate timeline

Mitigation

Establish regular sync meetings between TP-2501 and TP-2293 teams to manage interdependencies
Phased rollout: Start with supplier attachment and funding defaults, then tackle UI unification
Extensive user testing with coordinators before funding defaults go live
Clear error messaging and override paths for exception cases
Regular check-ins with Bruce, Beth, Tim during design phase

Estimated Effort

Requires Sizing Discussion – This epic contains multiple large initiatives (supplier-rate card integration, funding defaults, UI redesign) that should be sized in 1-week, 2-week, and 4-week increments.

Sub-Epics Needed:

TP-2502 (Discovery): Data analysis + vendor workflow validation – Recommend: 2-4 weeks
TP-2503 (Design): UI patterns, modals, coordination display – Recommend: 4-6 weeks
TP-2504 (Development): Schema, API, supplier attachment – Recommend: 4-8 weeks
TP-2505 (QA): Testing strategy + user validation – Recommend: 2-4 weeks
TP-2506 (Release): Migration, deployment, rollout – Recommend: 1-2 weeks

Note: Each sub-epic should be independently scoped and estimated with the team before development begins. The total impact is likely 4-8 weeks of parallel work, not 3-6 months sequential.

Success Metrics

Budget creation time reduced by 40% (baseline: current avg time)
Funding stream selection errors reduced by 60%
Coordinator satisfaction score increased by 2 points (out of 5)
90% of budgets use default funding streams (only 10% exceptions)
Zero increase in support tickets related to supplier-rate card confusion

Next Steps

Validate feedback with stakeholders (Bruce, Beth, Tim, Patt) - confirm priorities
Coordinate with TP-2293 team on rate card integration approach
Conduct data analysis on current funding stream selections to identify default patterns
Review supplier-booking schema with engineering to assess technical feasibility
Create PRD with detailed specs for each solution area
Design mockups for unified UI patterns (collapsed states, action trays, modals)
Break into user stories with clear acceptance criteria
Estimate story points and assign to sprints
Plan phased rollout strategy (which features ship first)

Appendix: Key Feedback Themes

This brief synthesizes detailed feedback across six areas:

Supplier & Rate Card Integration
Service Plan & Workflow Improvements
Reducing Cognitive Load
Coordination & Settings Clarity
Funding Stream Improvements
Package Metadata

See PRD for detailed requirements per area.