Gerd Hupperich (ULB Bonn)

My feedback

9 results found

1. Please integrate aspect „last copy within library / IZ / NZ“ within “Withdraw Physical Items” process

   100 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  ·  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
   Gerd Hupperich (ULB Bonn) supported this idea  ·  Oct 27, 2025

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

   102 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  ·  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
   Gerd Hupperich (ULB Bonn) supported this idea  ·  Oct 16, 2025

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

   •  

   279 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…)
   10 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
   Gerd Hupperich (ULB Bonn) supported this idea  ·  Mar 11, 2026

4. Improve Primo Search Algorithms

   • 

   449 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  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  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
   Gerd Hupperich (ULB Bonn) supported this idea  ·  Sep 6, 2024

5. Ability to share favorites

   49 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…)
   5 comments  ·  Primo » User Functionality  ·  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
   Gerd Hupperich (ULB Bonn) supported this idea  ·  Sep 6, 2024

6. Enable retrieval with/without/compound hyphens in Hebrew

   105 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…)
   7 comments  ·  Primo » User Functionality  ·  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
   Gerd Hupperich (ULB Bonn) supported this idea  ·  Aug 29, 2024

7. Allow Primo to comply with the "force password change on next login" setting in Alma for internal users

   184 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…)
   9 comments  ·  Primo » User Functionality  ·  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
   Gerd Hupperich (ULB Bonn) supported this idea  ·  Jul 18, 2024

8. Alma needs to be able to export holdings records (MFHD)

   82 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…)
   5 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
   Gerd Hupperich (ULB Bonn) supported this idea  ·  Oct 28, 2025

9. Add publication date and subject fields to 'Portfolio Details for Consortia Members' analytics table

   63 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…)
   3 comments  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  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
   Gerd Hupperich (ULB Bonn) supported this idea  ·  Oct 28, 2025