Skip to content

Ross Whitley

My feedback

4 results found

  1. 102 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    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…
    Ross Whitley supported this idea  · 
  2. 216 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Dear colleagues,

    Thanks you for suggesting this idea.

    After reading it carefully, my understanding is that the need is for a new “entity” which will serve as a “bridge” between encumbrance and expenditure. This bridge will be named “Pending invoices”.

    Any POL which is invoiced will be disencumbered and the amount will be added to the “pending invoices balance”. When an invoice is approved, the amount should be reduced from the “pending invoices balance” and added as an expenditure.

    1. Is this understanding correct?
    2. Do you think that the definition of using this "bridge" should be in institution level, or might be different from invoice to invoice?

    Please note that this is a complicated addition. We will need to define the behavior in rollover, and in any place that changes balances etc.

    Thanks for your collaboration,

    Tamar Fuches

    Alma product team

    Ross Whitley supported this idea  · 
  3. 31 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Ross Whitley supported this idea  · 
  4. 25 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Ross Whitley commented  · 

    "Vendor / Financial Sys. Code" in Alma maps to "Vendor / ERP Number" in Analytics.

    However, we prefer to keep data in at Vendor Account level ("Vendor Account / Financial Sys. Account code") which does not appear in Analytics.

    Please update Analytics Funds Expenditure SA to include "Vendor Account / Financial Sys. Account code".