The Description Template Setup Rules list must continually be reordered, since the first (sequentially) rule for which the enum/chron combination meets all criteria is used for the description, even if the enum/chron would more exactly meet a later rule. Regardless, is is also helpful to order the list so that similar rules are grouped together, so reordering would desirable as rules are added or removed.

Currently, the only way to reorder the list is to move a selected rule up or down in the list, ONE PLACE AT A TIME. This is time consuming and inefficient.

Please add the ability to reorder the list by selecting a rule (or group of rules) and dragging it to it's desired new position in the list. Similar to how columns can be reordered in Alma Analytics.

This would greatly improve efficiency in working with the Description Template Setup Rules.

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.

We would like desk operators to have the option of selecting from a list of predetermined check out periods for items in certain collections.

Boston College Libraries currently provide approximately 80 laptops to community members, which can be borrowed for a fixed loan period. For many patrons this static loan period is either too short or too long, adding some loan period choices would enable us to easily meet the needs of more patrons.
Currently in Alma, offering a variety of loan periods would require the creation of additional locations and terms of use. Doing so would enable us to move subsets of our inventory to each location, however, this is an inherently a rigid way of inventory control. What we are looking for is a more flexible system that enables our entire laptop inventory to circulate for a variety of loan periods.

The imagined workflow:

1. Patron comes to borrow a laptop.


2. The laptop is loaned in Alma


3. The operator is presented with a dialog box with a series of loan period options (configured at the library level) - for example (4 Hours, 1 Day, 4 Days, 7 Days).


4. The operator asks the patron which loan period meets the need and makes the selection in Alma to complete the loan.

Thank you for considering this request.

User experience testing that we conducted showed that most users prefer to place resource sharing requests via the resource sharing request form in Primo. Users also expressed frustration with some aspects of the form including the format of the fields. They also expected that the Library could add notices relevant to the resource sharing service to this page.

The current options for configuring this form do not allow us to meet the expectations of our users. We would like to have more options for customising the page the form is on and the form itself. Specifically we would like :
1)The ability to customise the format and appearance of the page (e.g. the width of form fields, the positioning of the radial buttons)
2)The ability to add a notice or message to the form (this is crucial to communicate important information about the service to our users)
3)The ability to add custom fields to the form

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.

Dear all
the May release introduced a change concerning the deletion of empty holdings:

The 'Delete Holdings' link in the 'List of Holdings' page, which was formerly visible to users with the 'Physical Inventory Operator' role, is now visible only to users who have the 'Physical Inventory Operator Extended' role.

This change is a problem because not all the operators can have the physical Inventory Operator Extended role: this role allows operators to delete copies and it is quite dangerous.
It would be better for us that operators with the physical inventory role keep the permission to move copies from an holding to another and then delete the empty holding. (let’s think of a correction of call numbers)
We propose the creation of a second Physical Inventory Operators’ role :
One without the possibility of delete empty holdings
and another one with the possibility of delete them.
So that, according to the job that operators have to do, they could keep doing the work deleting empty holdings

The Activity Report letter automatically tries to send when “Renew Selected” and “Renew All” are selected in Alma Patron Services. This is problematic for a few reasons:

1. The letter is triggered even when the letter is disabled in Letter Activity configuration. It generates a ‘fail’ message for staff.




2. The letter slows down processes dramatically depending on how many loans are attached to the account.




3. A workaround is to use the letter opt-out functionality, but we'd have to continually update all of our users with the opt-out in order for this to work well for us.

I would like to see this functionality updated so that disabling the letter is enough to not trigger the letter automatically. This functionality should also be fixed so that the letter does not slow down processes when there are many loans attached to an account.

When using the Restore change type under Change item information, the only change made is toggling the "item is in temporary location" back to NO. Any values filled in for temporary library, temporary location, temporary item policy, temporary call number, etc. remain. Restore should clear those fields, or allow operators to keep those fields by unchecking a box that would be checked by default.

If the item has been scanned to have an item policy for special circ rules, that information remains in the record when it is restored, even though that information is not applied. If the item is given another temporary change that doesn't require a special item policy the previous item policy will be applied when it is moved to a temporary location. See attached file for an example, and desired option to clear all temporary info.

This was also suggested in 2017 NERS as Idea 5111: Remove Temporary Item Information during "Restore" Currently, temporary item information is not wiped out when a temporarily moved item is "restored" either via a staff process or expiration of the temporary move date. The info is confusing and can cause issues with Analytics, Manage Sets, and future temporary moves on the item.

See also the idea relating to removing temporary item information: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/11012787-remove-temporary-location-not-just-change-indicat

In Alma task lists ...

• Electronic resources - activation - unassigned (Electronic Resource Activation Task List)


• Order Lines - review - unassigned (Purchase Order Lines in Review)


• Invoices - review - unassigned (In Review Invoices)

... there is only a row action ("..." button) to start the "Assign to" dialog which opens a pop-up window where you can select a user. Our colleagues are not satisfied with this cumbersome assignment functionality.

The missing functionalities are:
(1) a one-click "Assign to me" button
(2) a bulk functionality for "Assign to" and "Assign to me" (it is already possible to mark several records in the task list but you can only change the Status with a bulk action)