When receiving Resource Sharing Borrowing items, the 'Automatically Print Slip' option is only remembered for the current session, which leaves this vital function open to error.

This could be improved in one of the following ways (in order of preference):

Option 1: Provide a configuration option in one of the code tables to set the default (this would also be desireable for all similar functions elsewhere, such as in RS Lending).

Option 2: Make the last selected option persist across sessions so our staff can set it once and not have to remember to set it every time.

Option 3: Change the default setting to 'Yes'. (This was done for RS Lending back in 2016 under Idea 'Change default of Automatic Print Slip from No to Yes in Alma RS'). This is the least preferred option as it may disrupt other institutions workflows.

We are trying to configure a more automated workflow for Resource Sharing in our consortium. We recently reconfigured our Resource Sharing settings. Our Partners' Locate Profiles were all changed from not checking availability (so we had time to manually manage queues) to "Check for availability" so that items will pass instantly through the Rota if an item is not available at a partner. Then each of the Resource Sharing Libraries modified their Library Details from cancelling requests on locate failure to not cancelling requests on locate failure, which keeps the request Active after it passes through the Rota unfilled, and puts it into a status of Locate Failed. Currently, there is no job to automate the process of Recalculating the Rota Assignment for requests in any Status, let alone the Locate Failed status, so we are manually passing these requests back through the Rota by manually selecting Recalculate Rota Assignment for each one. We would like to perform this automated Recalculate Rota Assignment job daily for a set amount of time or until an entered "date not needed by" gets near (monitored manually), at which point we can help the patron acquire the item via others means at our own discretion. This setup will help our requests reach available partners more quickly and allow an automated way of re-checking Partners for requested items that become available again.

We would like the ability to view the original XML/ISO messages sent between lender and requester in our Lending requests. There is information we need that doesn’t display in requests when they come into our system.

Examples include:

*Copyright declaration: we need this for copyright compliance reporting purposes

*Maximum cost: if this doesn’t display, we have to confirm that the requesting library accepts our charges if the cost is going to be over the standard charge

*Expiry date: the request status changes to Expired if this date is passed, and the request moves on in the rota

*Need by date: the field is in the request, but the information doesn’t display. We need to be able to see this so we can notify the requesting library if we can’t supply the item in time

*Date and time that request is received: we need to know the date and time a request comes into our system so we can ensure our turnaround time meets the service level – particularly important for Express requests

Being able to view the ISO messages in requests would be invaluable.

Why this is desirable:
To facilitate personal delivery for a subset of a user group (online or distance learners, for example), Alma needs an additional input parameter in the Borrowing Resource Sharing rule. Due to additional cost implications for these patrons and the delivery of their requested items, we do not want to offer this service to all users with a certain user group. Giving these patrons a separate user group, where all other loan, request, etc. rules are identical other than the personal delivery setting adds an undesirable level of complexity to the existing fulfillment rules and patron groupings. By using a job category, we can easily identify users across user groups that are eligible for special delivery services.

In the main fulfillment unit rules for Request rules, we can already use Job Category as an input parameter to identify a special group of users to use a special TOU for just those users with that job category. We can use that rule to set pickup options to allow personal or office delivery for those users for items owned locally (patron physical item requests).

For resource sharing requests, we have a very limited list of input parameters available to determine borrowing and delivery options, and cannot use the same kind of identifying data in the patron record as we can for local requests. We would like to be able to offer the same pickup and delivery options for both locally held items and for resource sharing requested items.

Desired behavior:
Patrons with a special job category that allows personal delivery for both local requests (patron physical item requests) and resource sharing requests will have the same delivery and pickup options that the library will define in the applicable TOUs. Resource Sharing requests will be sent to the patron’s Resource Sharing Library as defined in their patron record. The requests will follow the existing workflow for personal delivery that exists if we use User Group as the input parameter, currently. The borrowing library will intercept the requested materials and mail them to the user, as appropriate.

When setting recall period on a fulfillment loan to "No recall due date", the original due date is kept, while renewal of the recalled loan is blocked.

For some reason, a different logic is applied to lending requests. Setting "No recall due date" as the recall period policy for lending requests, results in the due date being set to the date of the recall. The result is unpredictability for the borrower.

We propose that that these two very similar workflows are better alligned and that setting "no recall period" for recall should result in no change to the due date on a recalled lending request.

Audun Skorstad
Unit – The Norwegian Directorate for ICT and Joint Services in Higher Education and Research

We would like to see a status called 'In Process' created for Lending.

There are often times when you need to contact a requesting library to confirm details. However as there is no applicable status to change the request to it risks being worked on by another individual if we leave it in unassigned.

We could assign the item to ourselves however, if someone else receives the response or if the staff member concerned is away then the request gets held up longer because its not accessible. Ultimately you end up with double handling and it becomes a very inefficient process. Both in staff time and in the time it takes to get the book to the requesting library.

Having an 'In process' status would indicate the item was worked on and is waiting for a response. It would also mean we could check on it frequently to ensure the request isn't forgotten about.

When using Lender Due date for RS items (Fulfillment > General > Other Settings > ignore_lender_due_date = false) the date for Pick up from shelf is the same as the Due date. This is, according to ExLibris, working as intended, but we have a few issues with the workflow.

This makes the workflow more manual and difficult than needed, given that we have to manually check RS items that is not getting picked up by patron within a couple of weeks. Having the RS items on Hold shelf for up to 4-6 weeks is poor use of time - for the patrons, the book and the library.

If we could set a Hold shelf expiry date for RS items that is shorter than Due date, it would make it easier for the circulation desk personal to remind patrons that they have a book waiting. This will give the book more time at use with the patron, and less on the hold shelf. It will shorten the waiting time for other patrons, as the book will be returned earlier to the owning library if it is no longer needed by the patron.

The best would be if this process could be automated, e.g. by TOU policy. (Much like the Hold Shelf Period policy that exist for TOU type Requests.)
If it’s not possible to populate a Hold expiry date automatically, a data field in the receiving RS items pop-ups would be helpful. (Pictures added.)

Currently, when users click the resource sharing button and there are no items available to loan in the consortia (e.g., there is only one copy in the system and it's checked out or located in a non-lending resource sharing / unavailable location (e.g., reserve), users are shown a message that no items are available, BUT they can still click the 'submit' button on the request.

Would it be possible to prevent users from placing the Resource Sharing Request? I've attached an example of an item that cannot be filled through the resource sharing network because it's on reserve at another institution. While the calculated availability shows no items available, I can still technically submit the request form, which results in an immediate cancellation. It would be better if when calculated availability shows no items, the 'REQUEST' button is greyed out / cannot be clicked, and/or have some mechanism to tell users they should try another options (e.g., show users the another configured ILL link).

When working on resource sharing requests lists (lending and borrowing) the first thing to do is selecting another search entry/term, mainly an aspect at the end of the list, to find a special request, because the author ist never the aspect we search for. The list in the pull down menue is hard coded and there is no option to re-order the list as we need it.
At least we like to achieve that the list starts with the last three search aspects the staff user has used. Alma has to remember them for the logged in staff user similar to the functionality developed for the NUI in connection with other topics (i.e. last location - currently at... or last searches in the persistant search box).
We need this functionality for Resource Sharing Requests as well.

In the SNLP workflow the partner changes from the own partner code to the partner who ships the request automatically. Therefore most of the requests have the correct partner when the item arrives at the library.
So most of the time there is no need to modify a partner and the staff's attention to this attribute is not as high as it is to other attributes of the request. If we observe this AFTER receiving the item, there is no possibility to do so.
Because we don't know to which partner we have to send back the item after it has been returned by the patron, we now have to missapply other fields of the request to store this information.
Perhaps not all libraries want to allow their staff to do so, so we suggest a new parameter which can be switched off, if it is not needed.