This 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 difference from option 1 is that when an item is in an "unavailable" location, it can still be in a process such as loan, work order or any other process type. These are 2 separate attributes
The existing options for location based configuration can be used
Option 3: A new "unavailable" field in item level
It will be possible to mark specific items as "unavailable", similar to the availability status of portfolios
Items marked as "unavailable" will be considered as "not in place"
Similar to option 2, "unavailable" item can still be in a process such as loan, work order or any other process type. These are 2 separate attributes
As this is a new attribute, relevant configuration options will need to be enhanced to take this attribute into consideration. Further analysis will be needed here
Although option 3 might give more flexibility, it is super complicated and would require huge effort. Therefore, the selected option is option 2: Mark a location as "unavailable".
The description of this idea exchange sounds like this option, however in the comments I saw some references to option 3. Therefore I wanted to share with you the analysis and discussion - you can see it in: https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/ERLrkhNUHtTYerEiaQAsG2uT
Please note that as this did not make it to the final list of the CERV selected items, there is no timeline for implementing this.
Thanks,
Tamar Fuches
Alma product team
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for raising this idea.
This 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 difference from option 1 is that when an item…
regarding the ExL suggestion that we use the Change Physical Item Information job to add work orders in bulk... It is easy enough to add a work order however for items with multiple work orders or requests already attached this job does not provide a way to select a specific one to be removed.
Katherine Schultz
regarding the ExL suggestion that we use the Change Physical Item Information job to add work orders in bulk... It is easy enough to add a work order however for items with multiple work orders or requests already attached this job does not provide a way to select a specific one to be removed.