Anonymous
My feedback
23 results found
-
37 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
36 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
83 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
303 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
90 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
115 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
72 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
113 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
102 votes
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for raising this idea.
This idea is related to another one - https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173/suggestions/48370850, which was part of the CERV cycle in 2025, but did not make it to the final list.
During the analysis, 3 possible approaches were discussed, each has a different estimation and effort:
Option 1: New dedicated process type
- It will be possible to mark specific items as "unavailable", similarly to the way it is possible to mark them as "missing"
- Items marked as "unavailable" will be considered as "not in place"
- The new "unavailable" option will appear as a possible process type in all the places where there is a list of process types, including configuration options such as Fulfillment Unit Rules
Option 2: Mark a location as "unavailable"
- It will be possible to mark a location as "unavailable"
- All items in this location will be considered as "not in place"
- The…
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
128 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
75 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
76 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
43 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
163 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
200 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
342 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
426 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
21 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
68 votes
-
212 votes
Anonymous
supported this idea
·