Enable us to display items in an "Unavailable" location type as Unavailable in Primo
We need the ability to show items that are assigned to a location with Type = UNAVAILBLE to show as unavailable in Primo
The primary use cases that prompt this idea are:
1. A library is closed for renovation and the items are inaccessible to staff and patrons, but the items must still be discoverable so that patrons can be directed to Resource Sharing in Primo.
2. Portions of a collection are temporarily inaccessible to staff and patrons, and the items are assigned to a temp location, but must still be discoverable so that patrons can be redirected to Resource Sharing in Primo.
In both of these use cases, setting the Location(s) to type = UNAVAILABLE accomplishes both suppressing a link for local requesting, and allowing a Request for Resource sharing link to appear, without any other configuration changes
Right now, items that are in a type=UNAVAILABLE location show in Primo with a prominent "Available" indicator in several places, and use the label for c.uresolver.getit2.item_list.status.ITEM_IN_PLACE in ViewIt, even though the items are not actually available. There is no way to use existing functionality to suppress this "Available" label or the "In library" (ITEM_IN_PLACE) label without an unreasonable amount of work (see info on the impracticability of using work orders below)
What is needed:
1. The calculated availability for items in a type=UNAVAILABLE location needs to be Unavailable/Not Available, when Alma might otherwise consider the items to be "in place" (not on loan, not in a process, etc)
2. The ViewIt information for items in a type=UNAVAILABLE location needs to use a new label, and not the "c.uresolver.getit2.item_list.status.ITEM_IN_PLACE" label
Why the suggestion on the closed Idea 46262368 "make location type 'unavailable' functional: items in these locations should be shown as unavailable in Alma and Primo" (see URL below) of using work orders to accomplish this is unworkable:
1. Work orders cannot be removed in bulk. If there are 300000 items that needs to be set to UNAVAILABLE, removing 300000 work orders manually when they are available again is an enormous burden on staff, and is practicably impossible.
2. Patrons find the Primo display of items in work orders to be confusing
3. Items in work orders are requestable unless further changes are made to the items or to configurations. Using a type=UNAVAILABLE location accomplishes the un-requestability without needing to do any other configuration or data changes,
SUMMARY:
Give us the ability to show items in a type=UNAVALABLE location as unavailable in Primo
- enabling clear and understandable display of an item's availability to our patrons
- without onerous additional work
Note: this is basically a repost of https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/46262368-make-location-type-unavailable-functional-items
That idea was closed despite support for the idea, and despite the unworkability of the "just put them in a work order" response from Ex Libris
Tania Hewes
shared this idea
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for raising this idea.
This was part of the CERV cycle in 2025, but did not make it to the final list.
During the analysis, 3 possible approaches were discussed, each has a different estimation and effort:
Option 1: New dedicated process type
- It will be possible to mark specific items as "unavailable", similarly to the way it is possible to mark them as "missing"
- Items marked as "unavailable" will be considered as "not in place"
- The new "unavailable" option will appear as a possible process type in all the places where there is a list of process types, including configuration options such as Fulfillment Unit Rules
Option 2: Mark a location as "unavailable"
- It will be possible to mark a location as "unavailable"
- All items in this location will be considered as "not in place"
- The difference from option 1 is that when an item is in an "unavailable" location, it can still be in a process such as loan, work order or any other process type. These are 2 separate attributes
- The existing options for location based configuration can be used
Option 3: A new "unavailable" field in item level
- It will be possible to mark specific items as "unavailable", similar to the availability status of portfolios
- Items marked as "unavailable" will be considered as "not in place"
- Similar to option 2, "unavailable" item can still be in a process such as loan, work order or any other process type. These are 2 separate attributes
- As this is a new attribute, relevant configuration options will need to be enhanced to take this attribute into consideration. Further analysis will be needed here
Although option 3 might give more flexibility, it is super complicated and would require huge effort. Therefore, the selected option is option 2: Mark a location as "unavailable".
The description of this idea exchange sounds like this option, however in the comments I saw some references to option 3. Therefore I wanted to share with you the analysis and discussion - you can see it in: https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/ERLrkhNUHtTYerEiaQAsG2uT
Please note that as this did not make it to the final list of the CERV selected items, there is no timeline for implementing this.
Thanks,
Tamar Fuches
Alma product team
-
Linas Salelionis commented
Currently, the item location can be of type "unavailable", but items are still shown as available in Alma. Please make the location type "unavailable" fully functional: if an item is in the location type "unavailable", Alma must display that item as unavailable.
The related idea: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/46262368-make-location-type-unavailable-functional-items. Ex Libris advice is inappropriate here because neither a process nor a process-related request is required here. -
Cindy Wiebe
commented
I have to agree with mcorby in the comments. "I find Work Orders extremely clumsy to use. It is hard to get Work Orders applied, and even harder to get Work Orders removed. It always seems to take multiple clicks/scans."
I hate work orders. It's been quite a while since I've (willingly) done anything with them. I try to avoid them whenever possible. (Note that we are also very small, so there aren't really departments - at least not in different places beyond the person one desk over.)
-
Katherine Schultz
commented
regarding the ExL suggestion that we use the Change Physical Item Information job to add work orders in bulk... It is easy enough to add a work order however for items with multiple work orders or requests already attached this job does not provide a way to select a specific one to be removed.
-
mcorby
commented
Having the option to make large numbers of items unavailable would be extremely useful. Usually we need to make batches of items unavailable because the items are in a physical location where the items are truly unavailable (possibly due to a building renovation). Another reason is that items are awaiting decisions to be withdrawn or transferred to a different location.
I would like to see the Unavailable option work the SAME as the Missing status. I can easily toggle an item from Missing to not Missing, and I would like to do the same with Unavailable. I can easily use Jobs to make items missing or not missing, and I would like to do the same with an Unavailable status.
There are a variety of reasons for why we make items missing. It is up to the library to determine the "behind-the-scenes" reasons why an item is missing. The same would be true for any library. The library would make decisions internally as to why they would use an Unavailable status.
I find Work Orders extremely clumsy to use. It is hard to get Work Orders applied, and even harder to get Work Orders removed. It always seems to take multiple clicks/scans.
When an item is made missing, it has a Process type of Missing. Why can't there be a process for Unavailable? On the Primo side, Missing items show to the public as Not available - Missing. Why can't Unavailable items just show to the public as "Not available?”
-
Christian
commented
Just to be reminded:
The NERS voting winner from 2021: ID #7177 ... Add option to configure Process Types for Unavailable Physical Items, without creation of requestsHowever, the implementation did not meet the specifications. That's why there are always new attempts to get a usable solution ...
-
Patricia Farnan
commented
"Can you not use the 'Change Physical items information' to bulk put all of the items of the location in a work order that is named 'Not Available' (making this text appear also in Primo) ? " - I don't see this as a feasible option when you have 83,000 records that are in offsite storage, as we do currently. We don't want to move 83k items into a work order.
-
Tania Hewes
commented
For me the biggest reason is the third reason I list above "Items in work orders are requestable unless further changes are made to the items or to configurations. Using a type=UNAVAILABLE location accomplishes the un-requestability without needing to do any other configuration or data changes"
Your customers are asking to have a simpler way to accomplish something they need to do. Specifically we are asking that the Location type=Unavailable be more fully functional than it is at present.
There are additional comments on the other post that support this.
-
Can you not use the 'Change Physical items information' to bulk put all of the items of the location in a work order that is named 'Not Available' (making this text appear also in Primo) ? The job allows also to remove the work order by selecting the 'In Process Type' check box without selecting a process type from the drop down.
