Purchase requesters are permitted to both 'Use existing record' AND choose 'Requested format' = 'Electronic'.

Please add the possibility of re-linking to an E-Portfolio--not just to a bibliographic record.

Beginning an e-purchase with a bib rather than a portfolio requires a lot of fiddling around after the fact to correct the record so the bib is not suppressed, or mis-indexed. And who knows what's happening under the hood.

Our proposal is to add a free field text in the popup when rejecting a purchase request. This field would include a note to the user, detailing the reject reason.
This could be used by the library in several ways :
- give the link to the record in Primo for documents already available ;
- give the link to an Open Access version of the document ;
- give details about the book (out of print...).

It would make communication more personal

It would be good if it was possible to convert a purchase request into a resource sharing request on Alma. This might arise in circumstances where the user has originally requested a purchase request for a journal article on Primo. It would be useful if this purchase request could be converted into an ILL request simply without having to re-key in the information

Add an order action in the Purchase Request to “Approve and order from the CZ.” Alma would add an alert to the citation and redirect the user to the Community Zone, to the desired portfolio.  The operator will only need to click on the  "Approve and order from the CZ". Currently the only Action is “Approve and Order” which creates a local portfolio not linked to an E-Collection. It’s cumbersome and time consuming to re-link the POL and portfolio to the correct Community Zone record.

Making purchase order letters more configurable to add imprint information (place of publication, publisher, and publication year) to the letter to vendor. As it is now only the ISBN (if it is available) and title are listed, sometimes the author. Many vendors reply asking for further information to identify what it is we are ordering.

In the Purchase Request List you can't see the "Requester Note" for a Purchase Request. In many cases there are very helpful information for managing the Requests. So it would be great if you can see the information immediately.
If the Note is very long, a mouse over with the text could be a solution.

In the Acquisitions> Purchase Request> Manage Purchase Request> “In Review” requests, these are displayed in reverse order of the creation date.

It would be more useful if the default order was by creation date, that is, the oldest requests were shown in the top, so that they are managed in the first place. In this way, it would save time in their management.
Another possibility would be that the librarian could select the type of ordering of the requests.

In Alma Purchase Requests, Requester Notes often contain important information included in the request which isn’t encoded in available fields, and for which recall via search would prove useful. Please add the ability to search Requester Notes from the Manage Purchase Requests screen to make this information easier to recall, and to make it possible to recall multiple results with similar Requestor Notes information.

Our proposal is that a purchase request with the status "Approved" can be rejected (NOT deleted) and that this information is updated in My Library (we want the user can see that their purchase request was rejected). The problem when you try to do this is that Alma warns that requests with status "Approved" can not be rejected.

Ideally, when the POL associated with the purchase request is canceled, Alma should automatically reject this request and it would be displayed in Primo-My Library. (for example, the provider says the book is out of stock)

It would be very helpful if the faceting that can be done in Manage Purchase Requests can be made "sticky" for each user account; some who use that area/workflow are orderers, some managers, and some selectors. All may have different areas they only want to see (e.g. request type, location, or those with queries, etc.), and it would be nice if the faceting we do can be made sticky, so we don't see unwanted entries.

We think the possibility to choose "Order Line Type" under "Request Attributes" would be helpful when editing a purchase request

Requestors need to be able to enter a reference or primary access URL to new electronic resource requests. The absence of this field is one reason we have to depend on an external spreadsheet to manage new orders.

1. An extra field for an interested user other than the requester
2. More mandatory fields (with red asterisk): Funds, Owning Library, Estimated Price

If possible, it would be very useful to be able to use the ‘Release assignment’ function for a batch of requests in the same way in which we can ‘Reject Selected’.

For our workflow, it’s infinitely more likely that we would need to release more than one request at a time instead of rejecting more than one at a time.