My feedback

11 results found

1. Enable us to display items in an "Unavailable" location type as Unavailable in Primo

   •  

   266 votes

   Vote 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…)
   8 comments  ·  Alma » Resource Management - Physical  ·  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
   AdminTamar Fuches (Alma product manager, Ex Libris) responded

   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 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… more
   Patryk supported this idea  ·  Oct 30, 2025

2. Make it possible to mark items as "unavailable"

   93 votes

   Vote 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  ·  Alma » Resource Management - Physical  ·  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
   AdminTamar Fuches (Alma product manager, Ex Libris) responded

   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 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

   The description here, on this idea, is actually option 3.

   During the analysis we identified that

   although option 3 might give more flexibility, it is super complicated and would require huge effort. Therefore, the recommended option is option 2: Mark a location as "unavailable".

   Do you think that implementing option 2 is enough? in that case, a dummy location "Unavailable" can be utilized for marking specific items by assigning them this location.

   I want to share with you the analysis and discussion - you can see it in: https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/ERLrkhNUHtTYerEiaQAsG2uT

   Please let me know your thoughts.

   Thanks,

   Tamar Fuches

   Alma product team

   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… more
   Patryk supported this idea  ·  Oct 30, 2025

3. Moving item records to differenent holding records and merging holding records

   23 votes

   Vote 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  ·  Alma » Resource Management - Physical  ·  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
   Patryk supported this idea  ·  Oct 23, 2025

4. Improve Request Limit configuration to match Loan Limit configuration

   7 votes

   Vote 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  ·  Alma » 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
   Patryk supported this idea  ·  Mar 19, 2025

5. When you close an invoice, the price can automatically be updated in PO-Line to the same on the invoice

   • 

   10 votes

   Vote 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  ·  Alma » Acquisition - Invoices  ·  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
   Patryk supported this idea  ·  Dec 13, 2024

6. Statistical categories display in Circulation Desk UI

   100 votes

   Vote 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…)
   10 comments  ·  Alma » 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
   Patryk supported this idea  ·  Dec 11, 2024

7. Adding a parameter to block the request queue for physical items at the title level

   3 votes

   Vote 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  ·  Alma » 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
   An error occurred while saving the comment
   Patryk commented  ·  Oct 9, 2024  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…

   I could be wrong, but I don't think I am able to set the process type „Requested” for title level requests to make the item unrequestable (trough TOU) after request, but before placing on hold shelf. I would like the ability to request to be limited to only currently available items (i.e. active requests). We loan items for a fairly long period of time, so usually pending requests for physical items are of no use to us. Of course, I may have missed some existing solution

   Save Submitting...
   Patryk shared this idea  ·  Oct 7, 2024

8. Request limit

   19 votes

   Vote 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  ·  Alma » 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
   Patryk supported this idea  ·  Sep 6, 2024

9. Sort booking requests by Start Time

   •  

   69 votes

   Vote 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…)
   3 comments  ·  Alma » 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
   Patryk supported this idea  ·  Jun 5, 2024

10. Add statistics notes and physical condition fields to Scan In Messages Configuration table

    3 votes

    Vote 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  ·  Alma » Fulfillment - General  ·  Edit…  ·  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
    Patryk shared this idea  ·  Apr 8, 2024

11. Library level patron limits configuration

    13 votes

    Vote 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  ·  Alma » 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
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Patryk commented  ·  Apr 8, 2024  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…

    Library-level request limits would also be useful.

    Save Submitting...
    Patryk supported this idea  ·  Apr 8, 2024