Kindoo Access Control System

[ELHawkes]

Do Temp users get automatically deleted?
This is what the wiki instructions say, but isn't fully clear if they are automatically deleted of if it has to be done manually.

Yes, temporary users are automatically deleted the second the expiration date and time occur. The license then returns to the pool of available licenses.

Very good, thanks for letting us know.

[ELHawkes]

Resend All

Is there a way to resend to all users who have not accepted the Kindoo invitation instead of just one at a time?

Check to see if there are any users that have not accepted the Kindoo invitation that could potentially be removed. In the Users menu, look for users that have the “Resend Email” link. These users have not accepted the Kindoo invitation and could be removed.

[swigginton]

Is there a way to resend to all users who have not accepted the Kindoo invitation instead of just one at a time?

The easiest way is probably to go to the "Site Dashboard" option. Choose "Export raw data to CSV". You can then filter that list by your choice of users who have never accepted/verified/logged in or have never unlocked a door. You can then copy and paste those email addresses to a bulk email.

[ELHawkes]

Is there a way to resend to all users who have not accepted the Kindoo invitation instead of just one at a time?

The easiest way is probably to go to the "Site Dashboard" option. Choose "Export raw data to CSV". You can then filter that list by your choice of users who have never accepted/verified/logged in or have never unlocked a door. You can then copy and paste those email addresses to a bulk email.

That's a great idea, thanks a bunch.

[mdigi]

If there's no pressure to limit the number of licenses, then why not just give everyone access? Far less work to manage that way.

I think there's wisdom of keeping wards/stakes just a little "hungry" so they manage their license to those who who have an actual need for it.

I guess that is one way to look at it. Not having enough licenses provides an easy excuse to say "no" when someone you don't want to have access asks for it.

I personally think the limited access approach makes more sense when dealing with physical locks; The "high security" cylinders (Medeco, Assa, Mul-T-Lock,...) do have some additional [often significant] costs with key duplication and rekeying a system so tracking each key is essential.

With a computerized system (Kindoo et. al.) the authorization keys should be per-user and immensely more secure than the exterior "high security" physical keys. In reality, if someone qualifies for a temple recommend, they should be fine with access to the building. In a computerized system, access is easily audited and can be revoked on a per-user basis.

[greenwoodkl]

I find the artificial license limit frustrating and shortsighted. Assuming our stake chooses to assign licenses to the full Bishopric with clerks and executive secretaries, that would be 8 of our 20, up to 10 if we added more allowed assistants in LCR. Add 5 org presidents (EQ, RS, YW, SS, Primary) takes us to 13. Hope that the presidents are always available for their organization's events. Can't fallback on a counselor or secretary. We currently have 3 tech specialists, 4 building reps (2 long term security, 2 short term cleaning), 4 Valiant Activity Leaders (2 couples, one for boys, one for girls). It wouldn't take much to breach our ward limit if the stake selects any standard callings that accept multiple members simultaneously.

Do we start converting standard callings to custom callings to avoid hitting artificial limits? Example: We pull our short- term cleaning reps out of the standard building rep calling for a custom calling, which we've avoided. Let the Kindoo licensing drive our LCR behavior? Do we petition the stake and FM group to minimize the automated callings chosen to avoid hitting the artificial limits, but then create more manual work to handle temporary and specialized license assignments?

If licenses are exorbitantly expensive, then that appears to be poor contract negotiation with the vendor for the scale of installations. If licenses are reasonably priced, then setting an initial artificial limit lower than the core leadership of a ward seems to be extra friction than needful.

[waymana]

We made a recent change, where if the stake needs additional licenses more than the initial amount you can request those through the FM group immediately rather then waiting a few months. You shouldn’t have to worry about removing people from synchronized callings. So going forward if you have multiple people in a calling you can request additional licenses to cover them. There is a cost for each license but it is permanently tied to a stake and not transferable between stakes and so we were trying to be cautious about how many were purchased.

I am part of the implementation team. We are still providing guidelines out to the FMs so if you have specific concerns please send me a private message.
Thank you all for your feedback.

[ELHawkes]

We have been told that there will initially be
50 licenses allocated to the Stake,
20 licenses allocated to each Ward,
we have not been able to get an answer if there are additional licenses allocated for branch leadership. We have two branches in our Stake.
Does anyone know if additional licenses are allocated for branches?

It is 20 licenses for each ward or branch. All the licenses are aggregated at the stake level for the buildings in the stake. A stake with 5 wards or branches would receive 150 licenses. So if a branch or ward doesn't need as many licenses, others in the stake could use them.

We have two branches in our Stake.
We asked for just 2 extra licences for each Branch and got none.

[waymana]

We have been told that there will initially be
50 licenses allocated to the Stake,
20 licenses allocated to each Ward,
we have not been able to get an answer if there are additional licenses allocated for branch leadership. We have two branches in our Stake.
Does anyone know if additional licenses are allocated for branches?

It is 20 licenses for each ward or branch. All the licenses are aggregated at the stake level for the buildings in the stake. A stake with 5 wards or branches would receive 150 licenses. So if a branch or ward doesn't need as many licenses, others in the stake could use them.

We have two branches in our Stake.
We asked for just 2 extra licences for each Branch and got none.

FMs were informed yesterday of this change.

[ELHawkes]

We made a recent change, where if the stake needs additional licenses more than the initial amount you can request those through the FM group immediately rather then waiting a few months. You shouldn’t have to worry about removing people from synchronized callings. So going forward if you have multiple people in a calling you can request additional licenses to cover them. There is a cost for each license but it is permanently tied to a stake and not transferable between stakes and so we were trying to be cautious about how many were purchased.

I am part of the implementation team. We are still providing guidelines out to the FMs so if you have specific concerns please send me a private message.
Thank you all for your feedback.

We asked for the stake music coordinator to be synchronized as one of our choices, but instead the ward music coordinators were synchronized that we didn't ask for and so I manually added the stake music coordinator.
That tied up six extra licenses for users I cannot delete nor can I get any response from the FM to give me access to delete them, nor get the music coordinators from being synchronized.
The support from the FM for this transition from one electronic system to another has been quite poor in many ways.