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.

Currently, there is no Description field in Patron Services page. Library staffs are not able to immediately recognize which issue, volume, or number is loaned, returned, or requested by a patron at a glance in three tabs at this page.

When circulation desk staff help patron to check or see their loans in Loan tab, Description field is not visible.
Or, if a patron requests different issues under the same title at a time, when he/she comes to circulation desk and wants to pick up his/her requested items, library staff will need to spend more steps to check the Description of each item. This takes too much time when it is busy at circulation desk.

When returning items in Manage Item Returns page, we can clearly identify which issue is returned through Description field, this is helpful.
Please also add Description field into all three tabs in Patron Services page, thank you!

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

Because all norm rules can be edited by all staff with cataloger roles, there is great room for erroneous changes for rules that are applied to batch jobs. For example, the norm rule that is applied to records being brought in from Z39.50 targets can be edited by any staff member. A single error in the rule can break the z39.50 import process for all staff until the source of the error is identified. Likewise, if we have a rule applied to import profiles and a staff member inadvertently changes it and we load 50,000 records, that could cause huge data corruption. There needs to be a way to secure a norm rule to administrators such that normal staff with cataloger roles cannot change them.

Currently the library can turn borrowing history on or off, but the choice applies to all users. For privacy reasons, and in order to avoid subpoena situations, we have it off, but some users do want borrowing history on as a convenience, and are not concerned about privacy risk themsleves. Why not allow those users to opt in to borrowing history, and allow the default otherwise to being off?

By the way, this "opt in" approach is how most public libraries in Eastern Massachusetts are set up, so our users expect this level of service from us also.

It is hard to explain that we leave borrowing history off because in our system turning it on exposes all our borrowers to a privacy risk. When users can't make this personal choice and control their own privacy settings at the university the way they can in their local cities and towns, it makes our library and our online system appear very "web 1.0".

Sometimes providers change a journal’s publication frequency throughout the year. So, the prediction’s pattern selected / elaborated at the beginning of the year doesn’t work anymore in Alma. One part of predictions (date of receipt) will be ok until the change but all other predicted items will be false. Now, we can revise the prediction during the year but we must erase the items already received. We can also leave the prediction defined at the beginning of the year and edit manually the false items from the time of the prediction change.

It would save a lot of time if Alma could change the description (number, date, …) only for the items that are impacted by a new publication during the year. We would just have to fill the « Next prediction item’s information » with the new frequency.
This enhancement would save a lot of time to catalogers.

We would like more order types to choose from when creating additional orders on a portfolio using the “Additional Order” button. Particularly, Electronic Book - One Time and Electronic Title - One Time.

Currently there are only a limited number of order types available when creating an order via this method. This creates inefficiencies, because using the Additional Order button is the easiest, quickest and neatest way to create an additional order on a portfolio.

An example of where this change would be helpful is when purchasing additional copies of a limited-user ebook. Because we don’t have the option of creating an Electronic Book - One Time order via the Additional Order function, we have to follow an unnecessarily convoluted process to create the order and attach it to the portfolio. Simply adding more “type” options for Additional Order would save us a great deal of time.

Alma authority control does not handle cases where the bib heading is linked to an authority via a cross-reference, but the preferred and non-preferred terms are in different fields, e.g. preferred term is in authority field 130 and cross-reference in authority is in 410.

Alma should be able to handle this scenario. Currently when the bib heading matches the authority cross-reference, Alma won't correct these and instead puts them on this report: Preferred Term Correction - Bib Heading found no authorized term.

Example bib heading that Alma won't correct:

110/2_ $$a Allied and Associated Powers (1914-1920). $$t Treaties, etc. $$g Germany, $$d 1919 June 28.

The authority record that this heading links to (via its cross-reference)

130/0 $$a Treaty of Versailles $$d (1919 June 28)
410/2$$a Allied and Associated Powers (1914-1920). $$t Treaties, etc. $$g Germany, $$d 1919 June 28

The bib heading in 110 links to the authority via the cross-reference in the 410, but because the preferred term in the authority is in 130 (and not 110), Alma will not flip the heading.