As someone who manages serial subscriptions, I would like the ability to choose the quantity of predictions I create for any given holdings record. This would allow for quicker navigation of list of items, and reduce the number of inaccurate predictions.

It is not always desired to predict an entire year’s worth of predictions (which currently is the only option). Depending on the publishing frequency and the number of copies of a subscription, we can have 11 pages of predictions in a list of items, in addition to the received items. This greatly increases the amount of clicking needed at times to find the item you are looking for. Also, due to variations in publishing schedules and the general inconsistent nature of periodicals, creating weekly predictions a year in advance often results in inaccurate predictions which will need to be modified later.

Current Alma practice is that EDI invoices automatically load into Alma and expend from a fund whilst still 'in review' and before the 'approval' stage.

Below are some examples where the practice of expending a fund whilst the invoice is still 'in review' is causing us issues:

1. We have full end-to-end invoice integration from our suppliers, via Alma and into Agresso. We don't send through manual invoices for payment. Our invoice data is automatically transferred through to Agresso every evening once an invoice has been approved. Only those invoices that have moved out of review are included in the export. Any invoices 'in review' will not be in the export but will be showing as expended on our system. This means that Agresso and Alma will always be out of step whilst we have invoices 'in review'. This makes it impossible to reconcile Alma and Agresso.




2. Some invoices have over 200 lines and it may take us some days to work through each transaction. There may be issues with incomplete or inaccurate data. We have to make a few manual amendments in order to ensure that the Agresso transfer completes successfully. Only once all of that is done do we 'approve'. Whilst this is happening our Alma and Agresso systems are out of sync. What is the point of the approval step?




3. We are working with IT on enabling the accrual accounting functionality so that our Finance Team don't have to maintain a separate spreadsheet of prepayments and meet monthly to reconcile. There is little benefit to be gained from working on this functionality if, once again, the two systems are always out of sync. We can't reliably turn up to meetings to discuss our accounts when the Alma reported expenditure includes invoices that aren't yet paid.




4. If an invoice arrives that doesn't have an Alma PO number on it, the transaction amount is expended but because there is no PO to match to the amount remains encumbered too.

Any 'in review' invoices should remain as 'encumbrance' until they have been 'approved' or have another 'pending expenditure' type invoice status.

Currently, the Display Logic settings are limited to IZ resources only; they do not allow choices for resources that are shared from the NZ among several institutions.

For example, my library offers unmediated CCC document delivery for certain Wiley titles we don't subscribe to. So when I set the display logic rule, it should be "Hide service Full Text with Electronic collection = CCC Get It Now Wiley if exists service Full Text with Electronic collection = Wiley Online Library." However, because the Wiley Online Library ecollection is shared in the NZ for my consortium, it will not appear as an option when I try to create the rule.

This feature would add the ability to load and export split coverage date ranges for Alma portfolios. Currently, the portfolio loader only allows uploading continuous coverage date ranges. However, in some cases, a journal has split coverage dates. For example, we might have access to a journal from:

1980-1995
1997-present

Currently, there is no way to upload this using the portfolio loader; the portfolio loader will only load one of the date ranges. This means we must do extra manual work to enter these date ranges in the portfolio editor.

Also, the standard portfolio export features in Alma, in cases where a portfolio has split coverage dates, only export the first range. In the above example (coverage from 1980-1995 and then 1997- present), export options (such as "extended export") only export the first range (1980-1995). This creates confusion when performing exports, as the export sheet does not contain accurate date range information. The only way to export split coverage from Alma is to use Analytics.

These improved import and export capabilities should be added for all uploadable date fields and all exportable date fields, including both the current coverage dates that display in Primo and the perpetual access date fields only visible in Alma.

To mark an item as missing, you must currently use the Toggle Missing Item option from the inline action menu, which only displays when you are viewing a list of items attached to a given bib record. However, if you search for the item using a physical item search, and only one item matches your search criteria (for example, if you search by barcode), then the item record opens automatically in the physical item editor. There is no option to toggle the missing status from this screen. Operators must remember to perform a title search, instead of a physical item search (counter intuitive, since only a physical item can be missing), and then drill down to the list of item records from the title record. It would be nice to be able to toggle the missing status from the physical item editor.

Problem:
It is not possible to easily find IZ bibliographic records that have associated PO lines but no inventory. The All Titles Advanced Search has an option to search for “Has inventory | equals | no”, but those results include bibliographic records that have related holdings records (bound withs), as well as bibliographic records that have holdings records but no item records. We want the ability to easily find bibliographic records that have only a PO line associated with them.

Use Case:
The ability to find bibs with only PO lines attached is necessary in order to keep the database tidy. Examples include:
bibliographic records that migrated with PO lines or order records attached but no inventory.
bibliographic records where inventory was relinked but the PO line left behind.

Potential solutions:
The NZ has a job (Identify records that are not used in the Network) that provides operators with several options for defining which records are considered “unused”, including those with no inventory and not part of a boundwith relation. One potential solution to the problem is to have a similar job in the IZ that would allow us to find bib records with PO lines but also exclude holdings records with no items.

Another potential solution to this problem is to have a new search index (and corresponding indexed field) in Alma that would allow an advanced search for bibliographic records with attached order records but no holdings/inventory records.

Hi,
We have dedicated librarians working on digitizations, and sometimes the item they have on loan and like to scan is not suitable for the digitzation process (notes, underlining etc).
They would then like to request another item. This request will be rejected in Alma due to policy. An item can not be requested when you already have a an item from the same bib record on loan. They would, of course, like to keep the original item on loan until they have checked if other items are more suitable.

You are able to request if the items have different policy (enablerequestduringloanfordifferentpolicy value is true in the Customer Parameters Mapping Table), or if the items are differentiated from one another using the description field https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/KnowledgeArticles/ConfiguringAlmatoAllowMultipleRequestsonA_Title.

This is not the solution for us.

We would like an additional option to these two under Block preferences in Alma:

24 Item of the same title is already on loan for this patron. Parallel loan is prohibited. Actions= Override by operator

25 An item of the same title was recently loaned to this patron. Actions= Override by operator

?? Item of the same title is already on loan for this patron. Request is prohibited. Actions= Override by operator

For institutions that handle a large number of Patron Physical Item, and other request types dealing with their physical inventory, the Print Slip Report available under Fulfilment>Resource Requests> Pick from Shelf is a crucial workflow tool.

However the report output is inflexible, including columns which are irrelevant to many customers and which require hiding/deletion in Excel formats before being printed for onward process by library staff.

It would be a huge improvement to be able to configure the columns that go into this report to ensure that only the key ones are downloaded for each circulation desk's pick from shelf lists.

NB The Print Slip Report is somewhat unusual in Alma in that most functional areas have Excel downloads of data from the User Interface which can be configured column-by-column, however the Print Slip Report has no User Interface equivalent display which makes the lack of configuration particularly awkward for the workflow - i.e. it is the ONLY place we can access this vital request-by request, holding-by-holding, barcode-level, service information.

Scenario:
There are multiple workflows and purposes for which the Quick Cataloging interface is used. For example, in course reserves, staff frequently need to create records for different resource formats beyond book and article. Staff at the circulation desks need to create records any time an item brought to the desk is not found in Alma, and these resources can take any form - from sound recordings on CD to equipment like laptop chargers.

Problem:
Not all of these materials fit the current “book” and “article” templates provided for Quick Cataloging. To enable efficient use of the Quick Cataloging feature, it is essential that staff are able to quickly complete record creation tasks without having to “fix” the records later because the current “Book” and “Article” templates don’t contain the correct coding.

This lack of proper templates leads to the need for libraries to educate non-cataloging staff on why records look/work the way they do, and to create “cheat sheets” for their use in editing quick-cataloged records to match their resource type. These fixes and workarounds add a considerable amount of time to the “Quick” Cataloging workflow.

Request:
The ability to configure multiple Quick Cataloging templates would more effectively meet libraries’ needs. For each template, staff should be able to configure the template’s default fields and mandatory fields. The templates, once configured, should appear in a drop-down selection list alongside the existing book and article record types when the Quick Cataloging feature is used.

A new multi-selection field, Purchase Request Library, was added to the User Details page with the June 2018 release. If one or more libraries are defined for a user, the user may create purchase requests only for the listed libraries. If no libraries are defined, the user may create a purchase request for any library.

But managing Purchase Request Libraries in user records can only be done record per record; there is no possibility for batch processes.

Currently, there is no option:
- to add or remove a Purchase Request Library with the Update/Notify Users job;
- to add or remove a Purchase Request Library with an API;
- to add or remove a Purchase Request Library with a SIS Integration Profile;
- to retrieve in Alma Analytics existing Purchase Request Libraries in user records or to find user records that have no Purchase Request Library.

We would appreciate a lot a more efficient Purchase Request Library management that would be integrated with the existing tools (Analytics, SIS, job, API).

Boston College would like to be able to configure Alma so that work orders are auto-created for materials in a designated location when they are placed on loan.

Here is the desired workflow:

1. Item is loaned.


2. At the same time, Alma automatically places a work order on the item.


3. When the item is returned to the managing circulation desk the work order is triggered and the item is routed to the correct work order department for processing.

The purpose of this request is to improve the management of the laptops that Boston College Libraries loan to patrons, and to facilitate the implementation of an online laptop availability tool.