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.

Collaborative collecting agreements are becoming increasingly critical for libraries in managing collections and access across institutions. Formal agreements require libraries to commit to hold specific items. Currently, there is no way to mark this in records unless in free text notes, and no system checks in place for items to prevent accidental weeding of items that libraries have committed to retain. This idea outlines system functionality to ensure that libraries can safely manage committed collections.

• Two new fields in Alma Items: a Committed to Retain check box and a Retention note free text field (minimum of 200 characters)

• A system check that does not allow withdraw (delete) of items in batch, via api, or via the user interface for items with the Committed to Retain toggle set to yes, but instead presents an error noting that the item is Committed to Retain.

• Ability to update these fields manually through the user interface, update in batch via inventory batch job, and update via the item API

• Addition of the Committed to Retain value and Retention note to analytics to allow for collection analysis

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

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.

Currently, there are limited scheduling options for emailing Scheduled Reports (Alma Analytics Object area). Many of our users need reports delivered on the 1st of each month in order to capture the previous month's data. The only option right now somewhat close to that is delivery on the 2nd of each month. This doesn't work for us because it adds the first day's worth of data from the next month to the previous month. I propose adding delivery options for the 1st of each month. Better yet - how about offering a drop-down list where users can choose a certain day of the month for report delivery?

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.

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.

Currently the only way to use records from NZ in an IZ is to search them in the NZ and perform an action like "order" or "link" on every single record one by one. There are, however, situations where an IZ wants to use a bulk of records. For this purpose we need a possibility to link records in bulk and create inventory for the linked records.

We imagine a linking job that takes as an input a logical or itemized set of records saved from a search in the NZ. The linking job can create physical and electronic (and digital) inventory, similar to current import profiles. The inventory operations for electronic inventory should include an option to specify the desired action if the record and a portfolio exist already in the IZ, out of the following choices:

• Add new portfolio.


• Update portfolio information (the URL).


• Don't do anything.

Use case:
The NZ loads monthly updates from e-book vendors where the IZs have purchased different packages. The workflows for group inventory aren't applicable here because the NZ doesn't possess the necessary information for determining who has rights to which portfolio. OAI is no option because this currently creates duplicate portfolios each time a record gets updated in the NZ. The workarounds currently in place involve sending files back and forth which is error prone and not very efficient.

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.