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…
For me the biggest reason is the third reason I list above "Items in work orders are requestable unless further changes are made to the items or to configurations. Using a type=UNAVAILABLE location accomplishes the un-requestability without needing to do any other configuration or data changes"
Your customers are asking to have a simpler way to accomplish something they need to do. Specifically we are asking that the Location type=Unavailable be more fully functional than it is at present.
There are additional comments on the other post that support this.
Tania Hewes
For me the biggest reason is the third reason I list above "Items in work orders are requestable unless further changes are made to the items or to configurations. Using a type=UNAVAILABLE location accomplishes the un-requestability without needing to do any other configuration or data changes"
Your customers are asking to have a simpler way to accomplish something they need to do. Specifically we are asking that the Location type=Unavailable be more fully functional than it is at present.
There are additional comments on the other post that support this.