1106 results found

1. Modifying a partner after recieving a borrowing request should be possible

   In the SNLP workflow the partner changes from the own partner code to the partner who ships the request automatically. Therefore most of the requests have the correct partner when the item arrives at the library.
   So most of the time there is no need to modify a partner and the staff's attention to this attribute is not as high as it is to other attributes of the request. If we observe this AFTER receiving the item, there is no possibility to do so.
   Because we don't know to which partner we have to send back the item after it has been returned by the patron, we now have to missapply other fields of the request to store this information.
   Perhaps not all libraries want to allow their staff to do so, so we suggest a new parameter which can be switched off, if it is not needed.

   In the SNLP workflow the partner changes from the own partner code to the partner who ships the request automatically. Therefore most of the requests have the correct partner when the item arrives at the library.
   So most of the time there is no need to modify a partner and the staff's attention to this attribute is not as high as it is to other attributes of the request. If we observe this AFTER receiving the item, there is no possibility to do so.
   Because we don't know to which partner we have to send back the item… more

   78 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Resource Sharing  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

2. Add "Process Date" facet to Resource Request Monitoring

   For some library processes, the Process Date is a more useful facet than Request Date when there is a need to identify newer vs. older processes. For example, an item currently in transit may have a Request Date from months ago when it was requested by a user, whereas the Process Date is the value that tells us how long the item has been in transit.

   When using Resource Request Monitoring to identify items that have been in transit the longest, it would be very helpful to have the ability to facet by Process Date in the same way we can facet by Request Date.

   For some library processes, the Process Date is a more useful facet than Request Date when there is a need to identify newer vs. older processes. For example, an item currently in transit may have a Request Date from months ago when it was requested by a user, whereas the Process Date is the value that tells us how long the item has been in transit.

   When using Resource Request Monitoring to identify items that have been in transit the longest, it would be very helpful to have the ability to facet by Process Date in the same way… more

   9 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Fulfillment - Requests  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

3. Please add restrict request function for fulfillment network requests in Primo VE between institutions.

   We are a library consortium facilitating interlibrary loans through a fulfillment network with Network Zone, rather than AFN.

   It allows patrons to find items from other institutions directly and request them. Our goal is for patrons of Institution A to use Institution A's Primo VE to request books from Institution B.

   If Institution A has the book available for borrowing, requesting the book from Library B will not be possible.

   Implementing the above feature in Alma to restrict requests in this manner would not only save shipping costs but also reduce waiting times for patrons.

   We previously submitted this requirement, but unfortunately, it was closed. However, we still hope this requirement can continue to receive your attention. (https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/46889608-please-add-specific-limitations-for-interlibrary-l)

   We are a library consortium facilitating interlibrary loans through a fulfillment network with Network Zone, rather than AFN.

   It allows patrons to find items from other institutions directly and request them. Our goal is for patrons of Institution A to use Institution A's Primo VE to request books from Institution B.

   If Institution A has the book available for borrowing, requesting the book from Library B will not be possible.

   Implementing the above feature in Alma to restrict requests in this manner would not only save shipping costs but also reduce waiting times for patrons.

   We previously submitted… more

   127 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Fulfillment - Requests  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

4. Unclutter index for F3 lookup from field 830 (Series Added Entry - Uniform Title)

   F3 lookup from field 830 is used to verify if a series title has been entered into the database in a standardized form, and, if so, to link the bib record to that title . At present, the index searched by F3 contains a mixture of headings from fields 830 and 490 (where the non-standardized series title is entered) and headings with volume numbers (which refer to a part of a series, not the series as a whole). To best serve its purpose, the index looked up from 830 with F3 should contain and display only the fields $a, $p, and $n from field 830 (bibliographic headings or authority headings, where they have been created).

   F3 lookup from field 830 is used to verify if a series title has been entered into the database in a standardized form, and, if so, to link the bib record to that title . At present, the index searched by F3 contains a mixture of headings from fields 830 and 490 (where the non-standardized series title is entered) and headings with volume numbers (which refer to a part of a series, not the series as a whole). To best serve its purpose, the index looked up from 830 with F3 should contain and display only the fields $a, $p,… more

   22 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Resource Management - General  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   Closed  ·  AdminErez Shabo (Product Manager, Ex Libris) responded

   This idea has not received sufficient support from the community through votes. As a result, it is being closed to allow those votes to be reallocated to other active proposals. We appreciate the contribution and encourage continued participation in shaping future initiatives.

5. Default format when creating a borrowing request manually

   When creating a Borrowing request manually within ALMA, even for articles, the default option for Requested Format is Physical. It would make more sense for the default option to be Digital.

   13 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Resource Sharing  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

6. Automatic printing of ILL lending (pick-up) request slips

   A Pick From Shelf request (for physical or digital item requests) automatically generates an email (slip) and, through an automatic email manager, a printed request slip as well. We would like the same for incoming Lending Requests (RapidILL). For now, there is no option to print this Ful Incoming Slip Letter automatically. The only option is manual printing.

   12 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Resource Sharing  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

7. Add a request cancellation code & reason in the Request webhook

   The current Request webhook doesn't seem to include the Request Cancellation reason. Currently it just says:

   'event' => {
   'desc' => 'Request canceled',
   'value' => 'REQUEST_CANCELED'
   },

   The comment field refers to the request, but not the cancellation reason here:

   'userrequest' => {
   'requesttime' => '2022-05-11T23:42:26.191Z',
   'managedbycirculationdeskcode' => 'EASTCIRC',
   'mmsid' => '993815723607636',
   'taskname' => 'Rejected',
   'author' => 'Ferguson, J.',
   'itemid' => '2365452260007636',
   'issue' => '',
   'pickuplocationlibrary' => 'ABC',
   'dateofpublication' => '',
   'managedbylibrary' => 'State Library',
   'requesttype' => 'HOLD',
   'requestid' => '1419991190007636',
   'pickuplocation' => 'Redmond Barry Reading Room',
   'materialtype' => {
   'desc' => 'Book',
   'value' => 'BOOK'
   },
   'requestsubtype' => {
   'desc' => 'Patron physical item request',
   'value' => 'PATRONPHYSICAL'
   },
   'volume' => '',
   'managedbylibrarycode' => 'ABC',
   'part' => '',
   'barcode' => '30328504468884',
   'expirydate' => '2022-05-19Z',
   'description' => undef,
   'pickuplocationtype' => 'CIRCULATIONDESK',
   'comment' => undef,
   'userprimaryid' => '12345678',
   'pickuplocationcirculationdesk' => 'DEFAULTCIRCDESK',
   'managedbycirculationdesk' => 'East Retrieval',
   'requeststatus' => 'HISTORY',
   'title' => 'Life.',
   'requestdate' => '2022-05-12Z',
   'additional_id' => '141-999-119'
   }

   The current Request webhook doesn't seem to include the Request Cancellation reason. Currently it just says:

   'event' => {
   'desc' => 'Request canceled',
   'value' => 'REQUEST_CANCELED'
   },

   The comment field refers to the request, but not the cancellation reason here:

   'userrequest' => {
   'requesttime' => '2022-05-11T23:42:26.191Z',
   'managedbycirculationdeskcode' => 'EASTCIRC',
   'mmsid' => '993815723607636',
   'taskname' => 'Rejected',
   'author' => 'Ferguson, J.',
   'itemid' => '2365452260007636',
   'issue' => '',
   'pickuplocationlibrary' => 'ABC',
   'dateofpublication' => '',
   'managedbylibrary' => 'State Library',
   'requesttype'… more

   • 

   3 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Webhooks  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

8. "Request re-indexing" option for withdrawn items

   There is a re-occurring indexing error in Alma when withdrawing items, where these items sometimes do not disappear from the Alma instance and a re-indexing job must be performed to correct it. These items often cannot be re-activated from "Manage deleted repository" and can't be interacted with. (See attachment)

   Ideally, it should be possible to request a re-indexing of the Alma-instance directly in Alma. This could be for a single record or the instance as a whole.

   •  

   51 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Resource Management - General  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   Closed  ·  AdminItai Veltzman (Product Manager, Ex Libris) responded

   This is a bug and should be reported to salesforce as a case to support

9. Send patron a confirmation email once a hold request is submitted

   Patrons are expressing confusion as to whether their request was actually submitted. We propose that a request confirmation email be sent to the patron as soon as the request is submitted, as is done with other online order forms.

   11 votes

   Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Fulfillment - Requests  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   Closed  ·  AdminErez Shabo (Product Manager, Ex Libris) responded

   Hello All,

   This idea has been closed as part of a cleanup process for ideas older than two years with fewer than 20 votes.

   This cleanup process is necessary to streamline our idea management process and ensure that the most relevant and impactful ideas receive the attention they deserve. If you still feel strongly about this idea, you may submit it via the NERS process.

   We value your feedback and encourage you to continue submitting and voting for ideas that you believe will enhance Alma.

   Alma Product Team

10. Default digitisation department for digital request types

    Ability to set a default digitization department for each digitization request type.

    Currently in Leganto, you can set a default digitization department for readings digitization requests. What we would like to do is to set a default digitization department for the patron digitization requests, and staff digitization request types within fulfillment.

    This is because when the patron request type is created within Primo, no managing department is set - unlike those same request types when lodged within Alma, where the managing department can be set.
    When the request is lodged via Primo, it seems to pick the managing department based on alphabetical order, resulting in patron digitization requests being sent to the readings digitization department - just because of the order in the list of departments.

    Being able to set the default digitization department based on the digitization request type - ie patron vs staff would ensure that the correct fall-back department is always set for requests made within the discovery layer, and in the case of staff digitization requests would ensure a supporting department gets the request in the case where the managing department wasn't set.

    This assumes there is no current plans to add requesting TOUs to do the same thing, but might still be useful.

    Ability to set a default digitization department for each digitization request type.

    Currently in Leganto, you can set a default digitization department for readings digitization requests. What we would like to do is to set a default digitization department for the patron digitization requests, and staff digitization request types within fulfillment.

    This is because when the patron request type is created within Primo, no managing department is set - unlike those same request types when lodged within Alma, where the managing department can be set.
    When the request is lodged via Primo, it seems to pick the managing… more

    6 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Fulfillment - Requests  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    Closed  ·  AdminErez Shabo (Product Manager, Ex Libris) responded

    Hello All,

    This idea has been closed as part of a cleanup process for ideas older than two years with fewer than 20 votes.

    This cleanup process is necessary to streamline our idea management process and ensure that the most relevant and impactful ideas receive the attention they deserve. If you still feel strongly about this idea, you may submit it via the NERS process.

    We value your feedback and encourage you to continue submitting and voting for ideas that you believe will enhance Alma.

    Alma Product Team

11. Clearer terminology for loan and copy requests on ILL request form

    Enable libraries to customise or replace terminology in Rapido request forms and request tiles so users can select services using plain language, such as "Loan" and "Digital Copy".

    Current gap: The blank request form requires users requesting a loan to select Citation Type "Book" and Format Type "Physical". Rapido request tiles similarly use the term "Physical Copy". Nowhere in these workflows is the term "Loan" used. Users must interpret system terminology to understand which option will provide a borrowed item. Similarly, users requesting a scanned reproduction must select "Digital", which does not clearly communicate that they are requesting a copy of part of a work.

    Impact: Users may be uncertain which option to select, increasing the likelihood of incorrect requests and creating additional support work for staff. Using clearer, service-based language such as "Loan" and "Digital Copy" would better align with user expectations and improve the request experience.

    This enhancement would support plain language and accessibility principles by reducing the need for users to interpret library system terminology. It would also create greater consistency between Rapido request forms, request tiles, and the service terminology commonly used by libraries when communicating with users.

    Enable libraries to customise or replace terminology in Rapido request forms and request tiles so users can select services using plain language, such as "Loan" and "Digital Copy".

    Current gap: The blank request form requires users requesting a loan to select Citation Type "Book" and Format Type "Physical". Rapido request tiles similarly use the term "Physical Copy". Nowhere in these workflows is the term "Loan" used. Users must interpret system terminology to understand which option will provide a borrowed item. Similarly, users requesting a scanned reproduction must select "Digital", which does not clearly communicate that they are request… more

    8 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Resource Sharing  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

12. Booking request - possibility to configure a blocked period

    We are using the booking request for technical equipment which has to be prepared for lending previously. We want that an item can not be booked shorter than 3 days in advance, so the team is able to prepare everything. This ist not configurable yet.

    27 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Fulfillment - Requests  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

13. Request status "Pending" and "On Waiting List"

    Add statuses to resource sharing borrowing request status field

    Is it possible to add two more statuses to the drop-down list for the Request Status field in a resource sharing borrowing request? We would like to add “Pending" and "On Waiting List".

    5 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Resource Sharing  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    Closed  ·  AdminErez Shabo (Product Manager, Ex Libris) responded

    Hello All,

    This idea has been closed as part of a cleanup process for ideas older than two years with fewer than 20 votes.

    This cleanup process is necessary to streamline our idea management process and ensure that the most relevant and impactful ideas receive the attention they deserve. If you still feel strongly about this idea, you may submit it via the NERS process.

    We value your feedback and encourage you to continue submitting and voting for ideas that you believe will enhance Alma.

    Alma Product Team

14. Customize display of fields in Alma Article request form

    We would like to display the fields in the Alma article request form in the following order: Journal name, year, volume, issue, pages, article title, article author, and issn - and not in the order these fields are currently hard-coded (e.g. author initials splits volume and issue, and publication date is at the end of the form)

    53 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Resource Sharing  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

15. Separate Default Format Settings for Book vs. Article Requests - Resource Sharing Request configuration

    Separate Default Format Settings for Book vs. Article Requests - Resource Sharing Request configuration

    Summary:

    Currently, Alma does not allow libraries to configure different default Format values (Physical vs. Digital) for Book (Loan) requests versus Article (Copy/Scan) requests in the Resource Sharing Request form. The single “Delivery fields > Format” default applies globally to both request types even though these request types have very different workflows and downstream impacts.

    Problem:

    When the default format is set to Physical (helpful for book requests), article requests originating in Primo can be incorrectly submitted as Loan requests. This causes article requests to enter ILLiad with the wrong request type and results in lost or incomplete citation data unless patrons manually change the format to Digital.

    Leaving the default blank fixes article behavior but removes the ability to default book requests to Physical.

    Requested Enhancement:

    Allow libraries to configure separate default Format values for:

    Book (Loan) requests and Article (Copy/Scan) requests.

    For example, by moving the Format default into the existing Book and Article request field sections.

    Benefit:

    This would ensure accurate request routing, preserve citation metadata, reduce patron error, and support efficient ILL workflows—especially for libraries integrating Alma/Primo with ILLiad.

    Separate Default Format Settings for Book vs. Article Requests - Resource Sharing Request configuration

    Summary:

    Currently, Alma does not allow libraries to configure different default Format values (Physical vs. Digital) for Book (Loan) requests versus Article (Copy/Scan) requests in the Resource Sharing Request form. The single “Delivery fields > Format” default applies globally to both request types even though these request types have very different workflows and downstream impacts.

    Problem:

    When the default format is set to Physical (helpful for book requests), article requests originating in Primo can be incorrectly submitted as Loan requests.… more

    9 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Resource Sharing  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

16. Add "Request" as a block option in Block Preferences

    Currently the Block Preferences have Block options to permit Blocks on Loan and Renewals, but it would be good to include Blocks on Requests on these blocks - specifically Patron Physical Item Requests, but conceivably other requests.

    For example is a Patron Limit is defined on Overdues or Recalled overdues, and the limits are exceeded, the relevant Block Preferences are triggered,
    i.e.
    Patron overdue limits has exceeded
    Patron overdue recall limit exceeded

    However, the only options on what patron services blocked are Loan and Renewal.
    Requests should also be added to the options so that overdues can immediately block a wider range of patron services.

    Adding this option allows libraries to more adequately sanction the breaching of patron limits (without having to manually add User Defined Blocks which do allow Request blocking) and so would prevent users with overdue (requested) items from requesting additional items while they are remain overdue themselves.

    Currently the Block Preferences have Block options to permit Blocks on Loan and Renewals, but it would be good to include Blocks on Requests on these blocks - specifically Patron Physical Item Requests, but conceivably other requests.

    For example is a Patron Limit is defined on Overdues or Recalled overdues, and the limits are exceeded, the relevant Block Preferences are triggered,
    i.e.
    Patron overdue limits has exceeded
    Patron overdue recall limit exceeded

    However, the only options on what patron services blocked are Loan and Renewal.
    Requests should also be added to the options so that overdues… more

    363 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    22 comments  ·  Fulfillment - General  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    Completed  ·  AdminLiza Voloshin (Product Owner, Alma Resource Management, Ex Libris) responded

    Hi all, thanks for supporting this idea

    
    

    Starting May 2026 release, Alma can be configured to block item requests when a patron is not eligible to loan the item based on its loan terms of use and any existing blocks on the patron.

    Read more in the Release Notes: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/2026/Alma_2026_Release_Notes/2026_RN_05_Main?mt-draft=true

    
    

    Best, Alma Product

17. Ability to add Request Note during Scan In to Work Order Deparment

    When performing Scan In on items to a Work Order Department, we have the ability to Set Status To our congigured status options, but no ability to add a Request Note, as we have if we were creating work order requests for some other Department.
    If we want to include a Request Note (to be included on any subsequent transit letters, for example), we then have to go into each entry in Manage In Process Items, locate the request that was created by the Scan In, and input a Request Note.
    It would be great if, while setting the status during Scan In as on the screenshot I've included, we also had the option of immediately adding a Request Note.
    (At my institution, someone figure out a way to batch-apply Request Notes via API, but this is not sustainable as it relies on one or two very busy people.)

    When performing Scan In on items to a Work Order Department, we have the ability to Set Status To our congigured status options, but no ability to add a Request Note, as we have if we were creating work order requests for some other Department.
    If we want to include a Request Note (to be included on any subsequent transit letters, for example), we then have to go into each entry in Manage In Process Items, locate the request that was created by the Scan In, and input a Request Note.
    It would be great if, while setting the… more

    •  

    14 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Other  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

18. Separate field for borrowing request statuses to display in My Library Account

    The borrowing request statuses in Alma are configurable, so that you can change the text that appears for both library staff and the user (in My Library Account).

    However, we would like the ability to have a separate field where the status can be configured for the user which affects the display in My Library Account only. This is because we would like to provide detail in these statuses for our staff, that our users do not need to see.

    For example, for the borrowing request status 'Request sent to partner' you may want to retain this status for library staff to see in Alma, but for users you may wish simply for 'In process' to display in My Library Account.

    The borrowing request statuses in Alma are configurable, so that you can change the text that appears for both library staff and the user (in My Library Account).

    However, we would like the ability to have a separate field where the status can be configured for the user which affects the display in My Library Account only. This is because we would like to provide detail in these statuses for our staff, that our users do not need to see.

    For example, for the borrowing request status 'Request sent to partner' you may want to retain this status for… more

    43 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Resource Sharing  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

19. Communicate edited AFN request details back to user's library, for inclusion in next ROTA stop.

    In our Automated Fulfillment Network (AFN), we are using the "volume" field in the resource sharing request form as the way users can indicate which volume(s) of a multi-volume set they wish to request from another AFN member institution. These requests are title level requests.

    (I'll note: We are not currently using the "description field" selection option in the request form, since upon last testing, it treated, for example, a "v. 2" as a different item than a "v.2" or a "V. 2" or a "2" when building the rota, and our consortium has too much variability right now in how items were cataloged for this to be efficient to offer to patrons.)

    So:

    IF (for example):
    --the users uses the Volume free-text field to request volumes 1-3
    --and the first library in the ROTA can only fill volumes 2-3

    THEN:
    --the first library in the ROTA is able to edit the patron's request as it shows in their IZ, to now only include needing Volume 1.
    --the first library in the ROTA can create two requests for the patron so they can send volumes 2 and 3 to the patron's pick-up library.
    --the first library can then "cancel" the original edited request so that the unfilled need for Volume 1 is passed along to the next AFN member institution in the ROTA.

    BUT:
    --the edits made to the request by the first library, to indicate only volume 1 is now the only volume needed, are neither forwarded along to the next library in the ROTA when the request is cancelled to promote it, nor communicated back to the patron's home institution's borrowing request. The updated information does not pass along to the next library in the ROTA.
    --the edits essentially disappear, leaving the next library to also consider filling volumes 1-3.

    It seems the only way we've found thus far to update the request is:
    1) the library that can only lend a portion of the request must contact the patron's home library.
    2) then the patron's home library must edit the patron's borrowing request to include the updated volume information.
    3) then the patron's home library must then use the "Recalculate Rota assignment" option to resend out the edited request information.

    We would like for the request edits made by earlier libraries in the ROTA to be forwarded along to subsequent libraries in the ROTA, without needing such staff intervention at the patron's home library.

    In our Automated Fulfillment Network (AFN), we are using the "volume" field in the resource sharing request form as the way users can indicate which volume(s) of a multi-volume set they wish to request from another AFN member institution. These requests are title level requests.

    (I'll note: We are not currently using the "description field" selection option in the request form, since upon last testing, it treated, for example, a "v. 2" as a different item than a "v.2" or a "V. 2" or a "2" when building the rota, and our consortium has too much variability right… more

    27 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Fulfillment - General  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

20. PO Line: <series_statement> and <series_uniform_title> - missing 490/830 subfield v in the XML

    Marc21 field 490, "series-statement", and Marc21 field 830, "series-uniform-title", are available on the Order List Letter (letter code: OrderListLetter).

    However, the content is not complete :-(
    Only 490|a goes to <series_statement>, 490|v - the Volume is missing.
    Also 830 only provides |w as <series_uniform_title>, |v is missing.

    Please see example:
    035 __ |a AC04654069
    245 00 |a Keiner wird gewinnen |b populäre Musik im Wettbewerb |c Dietrich Helms ... (Hg.)
    490 1_ |a Beiträge zur Popularmusikforschung |v 33
    830 _0 |w (AT-OBV)AC00913498 |v 33 |9 O:1

    <series_statement>Beiträge zur Popularmusikforschung</series_statement>
    <series_uniform_title>(AT-OBV)AC00913498</series_uniform_title>

    Please add 490 subfield v to the XML field <series_statement>, e.g. separated with semicolon:
    <series_statement>Beiträge zur Popularmusikforschung ; 33</series_statement>

    Not important for our library but maybe for other libraries: please also include 830 subfield v to the XML field <series_uniform_title>.

    Thank you in advance!

    Marc21 field 490, "series-statement", and Marc21 field 830, "series-uniform-title", are available on the Order List Letter (letter code: OrderListLetter).

    However, the content is not complete :-(
    Only 490|a goes to <series_statement>, 490|v - the Volume is missing.
    Also 830 only provides |w as <series_uniform_title>, |v is missing.

    Please see example:
    035 __ |a AC04654069
    245 00 |a Keiner wird gewinnen |b populäre Musik im Wettbewerb |c Dietrich Helms ... (Hg.)
    490 1_ |a Beiträge zur Popularmusikforschung |v 33
    830 _0 |w (AT-OBV)AC00913498 |v 33 |9 O:1

    <series_statement>Beiträge zur Popularmusikforschung</series_statement>
    <series_uniform_title>(AT-OBV)AC00913498</series_uniform_title>

    Please add… more

    158 votes

    Vote 0 votes Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Acquisition - PO & POLine  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    Completed  ·  AdminLiza Voloshin (Product Owner, Alma Resource Management, Ex Libris) responded

    Hi all,

    thank you for sharing and supporting this idea!

    As of November 2025, the acquisitions letters now include the subfields $v of MARC fields 490/830.

    Read more in the Alma Release Notes: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/2025/Alma_2025_Release_Notes?mon=202511BASE#:~:text=New%20MARC%20Subfields%20in%20the%20Acquisitions%20Letters

    Best, Alma Product.