We would like to be able to copy multiple lines from MARC records and paste them into the metadata editor so that multiple MARC fields are pasted into the record in one action. This would help us enormously with our workflow of importing MARC authority records from LibrariesAustralia into Alma.

For us, this is necessary because the LibrariesAustralia headings are not in the community zone and are unlikely to ever be included there and Alma does not allow for Z39.50 import of authority headings.

We have this functionality of copying and pasting multiple fields in the LibrariesAustralia Cataloguing Client and other library systems allow it. At the moment we need to paste each line one by one into Alma and it is slow and repetitive. This process is a step backward from previous functionality.

There are lots of tables in the Alma UI that come up which can be sorted by a couple of the column heads but not others. For example in Letters Configuration, you can sort by "Letter" or "Description," but not by "Enabled," "Channel," or "Retention Period." Being able to sort by column headings is a basic function of a table.

In the example above, it would be helpful to be able to see only those letters that are enabled, or to sort so that all the email letters are grouped together and all the SMS letters are separate from them.

So much of what we do in Alma is arranged in tables like this, so it would be great if they could be made more user friendly.

Request for Alma item barcode be included in the data that is published to Primo as part of the Alma publishing functionality to enable barcode searchability in the Primo keyword search. We have discovered that items migrated from our previous ILS do contain the item barcode(s) in the MARC 945 $$i and is written to the search:general field of the PNX. As such, those items are keyword searchable via their barcode in Primo. However, for items created in Alma, the item barcode is not written to the bib record and is therefore not searchable in Primo. Adding the item barcode manually to the bib 945$$i for each item as part of our processing is not a viable alternative.

We would like an enhancement to Alma publishing that would add the item barcode to the data published in the "AVA" field. This functionality would improve workflow for staff when they need to search a record in Primo without having to navigate out of the items screen in Alma to retrieve the OCLC number, the MMSID or the ISBN, or to pull up the record in Primo when the book is in-hand without needing to key in the title or ISBN.

Examples of migrated records with the item barcode in the 945 $$i:
http://alliance-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/CC:ccalma:CP71153242760001
http://alliance-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/CC:ccalma:CP71188416360001451

My libraries circulate various pieces of equipment from microphones, to musical instruments, to 3D printers, to lockers, and the current physical material type table does not suffice without adding a slew of item policies or location codes, which is messy and makes the resulting analytics more painful than it should be.

Ex Libris support states that "The [physical material type] codes cannot be changed, because Development needs them for statistics across libraries." However individual libraries will have items that they need to distinguish between either for fulfillment rule purposes or our own statistics.

I would like there to be about 15 generic material types added to this table that will allow libraries a bit of flexibility in dealing with this category. Similar to how Primo has blank PNX fields that can be used to create additional facets, etc. that best fit the needs of the library and its users.

A comment or note field for configurations would be incredibly helpful in general, but the current pandemic has highlighted the need for a way to easily track the reasons behind changes. This would keep the notes in the places where they'd be seen by the people working on the configurations, rather than us having to track things in a separate place.

All of the fulfillment configuration menu would benefit from this ability when short-term or emergency changes are being made. But it would also be good in places like: Letters; DARA recommendations; and all Other Settings areas. These are places that we might only touch once a year or less, so it would be helpful to know why X was deactivated, or who asked for Y change in wording.

With CDI we have no control over preventing CDI content from appearing in our Primo filtered search, when we have full text holdings which matches to this content.
In many cases this may be a good thing, in not needing to worry over making sure full text content is searchable.
However, it is clear that there are collections in CDI with very poor data, which causes linking to fail, and also has content which we do not want at all such as Journals and Books, as we manage the title level by our Alma records.
For example, CRL Catalog has 76,000 Journal records, which duplicate our own records and many of them are failing Link Resolver requests. LIBRIS has similar issues and content, and so does DataCite.
In just one day of Link Resolver data, for CRL we had 17 of 49 requests fail (34%), and for DataCite we had 27 of 124 requests fail (21%).
These numbers are all real users who are having a poor experience in our Primo environment and building a terrible impression of our Library service.
We should be able to remove this content by Alma Electronic Collection, with this content not appearing in our Primo environment if the CDI Electronic Collection is not in our Alma environment, such as not in our Institution Zone, or a new CDI setting to achieve this.
Please restore our autonomy to remove this content, so that we can offer our users a stable and consistent experience.

Acquisition librarians want to extend the current "interested users" functionality in order to serve the end user in a better and faster way. The current "interested users" functionality is not sufficient enough, to become useful and really benefit from this functionality we would like to extend it with:
• The ability to sort the interested user list.
Use case: some users (e.g. academic staff) have priority and should get the issue first!
• Make it possible to create hold requests on these items regardless of the existing fulfillment policy:
Use case: some libraries don't allow requests for available items, but this means they're not able to request items for interested users during receiving. (Apparently in the beginning of going live with Alma this was possible...).
• Make it possible to automatically loan the issue to the first interested user when receiving! This way limited routing functionality is made possible for (print) journal subscriptions.

The new shortloancourtesyreminder & shortloanoverduereminder cannot be configured for multiple locations. For institutions with several hourly loan locations (for example Boston College maintains 2 and 3 hour loan periods for Course Reserves and a 4 hour loan period for some technology items) this dictates that the reminder notice has to be set based on the location with the shortest loan period. The overdue notice must be timed to make sense for for the longest loan period.

In our test configuration we used the following time parameters:

​shortloancourtesyreminder - 105 minutes
shortloanoverduereminder - 241 minutes

However, this creates a situation whereby patrons borrowing from some locations will have already incurred an overdue charge before the overdue notice is sent.

In order for this functionality to provide the service is designed for, it must be robust enough to support different loan periods.

https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/ProductDocumentation/010AlmaOnlineHelp(English)/030Fulfillment/080ConfiguringFulfillment/110General#ConfiguringFulfillment_Jobs

More academic libraries are checking out high-traffic electronic items (laptops, Wi-Fi hotspots, etc.) and often have a long list of patrons with holds on these items. It would be useful if we could manage the queue for user holds/reserves more effectively. We should be able to renumber/reposition users in the queue (presently you may only bump someone up to the very top of the queue or profile a priority if users are from different user groups). We should also be able to manage the queue without having the item available; presently that is not possible. We often have 12+ users on a hold list at a time for laptops...and the users are generally all the same user category (students), so the present Alma functionality is just not helpful. If a laptop comes back and needs to be repaired, it is a big deal to manage the hold queue, so the next person in line is not bumped back to the bottom because that item needs repaired. Managing the queue should be a straightforward thing.

Acquisition librarians want to add automatically the "item policy" and "temporary location" to predicted issues to speed up their work and limit the number of clicks. At this moment the added value of prediction pattern functionality is being restricted by the lack of functionality (parameter setting) …
Use case: It’s not possible to add the item policy/temporary location as a parameter to continuous pol’s. If issues are created via prediction patterns the item policy/temporary location should be indicated automatically based upon parameter settings on pol level. This would save a lot of time and additional clicks when receiving the issues.
In addition this should also be possible when items are created based upon templates via the “receive new items” button.

For those of us working with continuing resources:

When viewing a list of physical items, the sort routine defaults to Library/Location. The items do not appear in any particular order when the results are loaded. Often I change the sort routine to Description or Receiving Date to view the most recent serial items and order them chronologically for viewing.

It would be nice if the sort routine "sticks" so that every time I open a list of items, the sort mechanism will stay on Description (not default back to Library/Location)

This would be especially helpful when managing items in the Receiving module "Received Items List," as we constantly must sort by Description to make sure no serial issues have been missed, and that the most recent issue has been received.

This is very helpful when checking PO lines in the Claims list. From the PO line details page, I click under Ordered Items>View Items. The List of Items sort routine often "sticks" here so that every time I View Items, they are automatically sorted by my previous choice (Description, Receiving Date, etc). This is the only instance I have seen the sort routine stick!

Please, Alma, remember my sorting preferences!

I would like a check-box in the item record that would allow staff to suppress individual items from discovery in Primo. This could be used for libraries that want to use only a single discoverable "dummy" item for placing requests on physical journals in Primo as well as libraries that prefer not to have items discoverable by patrons until they are done with processing and are available on the shelves. In an ideal world, if a holdings record only had suppressed items, the holding record would also not display. Moreover, if all items on all holdings attached to a bibliographic record were suppressed than the bibliographic record would also be suppressed.

Would it be possible to have a way of deleting physical item requests older then a certain date? Now it's only possible to delete all requests on a title, but that's not very useful.

Highly requested titles on a courses reading list is often not relevant after a certain date, when the course has ended. We sometimes see that old requests, that we haven't been able to fulfill, are causing unnecessary delay in fulfilling requests that are still relevant for the new, active course.

When we had to close the library in spring 2020, we also could see that a lot of requests wouldn't be fulfilled, and the users would not be interested once we opened again. Unfortunately our users are not very good at cancelling their requests, or give us notice that a book is no longer needed, when they get the hold shelf notice.

Having the possibilty to delete requests older then a certain date, will help circulate our books more efficiently.