Create, close, cancel, Purchase Orders (UXPROD-1141)

[UXPROD-1025] Ability to configure an ACQ specific list of Material Types used in Orders Created: 09/Aug/18  Updated: 16/Sep/20  Resolved: 22/Jan/20

Status: Closed
Project: UX Product
Components: None
Affects versions: None
Fix versions: None
Parent: Create, close, cancel, Purchase Orders

Type: New Feature Priority: P3
Reporter: Dennis Bridges Assignee: Dennis Bridges
Resolution: Won't Do Votes: 0
Labels: Q2fromQ1, Q3fromQ2, acquisitions, orders
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original estimate: Not Specified

Issue links:
Cloners
is cloned by UXPROD-2455 Add a configurable, independent 'orde... Draft
Relates
relates to UXPROD-1141 Create, close, cancel, Purchase Orders Closed
Epic Link: Create, close, cancel, Purchase Orders
Front End Estimate: Small < 3 days
Front-End Confidence factor: Medium
Back End Estimate: Small < 3 days
Development Team: Thunderjet
PO Rank: 61
Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): R4
Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): R2
Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): R2
Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): R1
Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): R1
Rank: FLO (MVP Sum 2020): R1
Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): R4
Rank: hbz (TBD): R2
Rank: Hungary (MVP End 2020): R1
Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): R3
Rank: Leipzig (Full TBD): R2
Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): R2
Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): R4

 Description   

Purpose: Libraries need the ability to customize their list of material types specific to orders and order lines.

High Level Requirements:

  • Allow the user to add, edit and delete values from the list of material types in the Orders module settings
  • You should not be able to remove a value that is in use


 Comments   
Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 12/Sep/18 ]

Hi Dennis Bridges. I noticed this feature didn't have an epic so I assigned Acquisitions. Thx

Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 12/Sep/18 ]

Thanks Cate!

Comment by Andrea Loigman [ 06/May/19 ]

Are the material types being discussed here tied to the material types being used in circulation rules/functions or are they tied to the formats being used in cataloging?

It's already been determined that the circ material type must be locally configurable.
I believe that the cataloging version (format) is based on the RDA carrier codes

I'd think that the circ version is a better match and that there needs to be coordination between Acquisitions and Circulation functions. Otherwise we'll end up with a disconnected sets of similar data.

Happy to be of help on this if I can.

Comment by Steve Bischof [ 05/Nov/19 ]

SHould be coordinated with Inventory/item material type

Comment by Andrea Loigman [ 05/Nov/19 ]

Agreed Steven! I actually think this should be assigned to RA rather than Acq. Material type exists to be a component of the circulation rules.

Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 05/Nov/19 ]

I'd like to understand more as to why there would be separate lists for acq and cataloging. I know in Aleph there are separate lists, but I don't understand why.

Andrea Loigman isn't material type a cataloging thing though? It exists in Aleph right now. You are correct that it's part of circulation rules.

Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 06/Nov/19 ]

This came about after discussion in the RM SIG. Essentially it was proposed that reporting requirements and categorization of spending may differ from the perspective of orders. Thus, it would be valuable to have a unique list of material types in the orders app that could describe the general material type of the order. Currently the order material types are pulled from the inventory item material types controlled vocabulary that can be edited in inventory settings.

Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 06/Nov/19 ]

I guess I'm thinking, from a definition stand point, why would an item's material type change in an order versus when it's catalogued. It's not like it's a different thing you're ordering.

If it's categorization of spending, maybe that's a field that's not called material type, but something else.

I just know that when non-acquisitions and non-catalogers were looking at this here at Duke in Aleph, our current ILS, (me and Julie Brannon) we were very confused about two lists that were labeled as material types but had very different values. I'd advocate for not replicating that kind of structure in FOLIO unless it is really, really necessary.

Comment by Andrea Loigman [ 06/Nov/19 ]

There was joint RA/MM small group a while back, MM felt that they needed to use the RDA carrier types and RA found that list too restrictive (e.g. is a videodisc a DVD, Blu-ray or laserdisc). So two types were created a format type (restricted to RDA) and a locally configurable material type that would allow RA to control circulation and allow libraries to create rules for all of the odd things they circulate (bicycles, backpacks, umbrellas and various types of tech were all on that list).

I'm going to guess that RM will need to use both material and format. The format list is at http://www.loc.gov/standards/valuelist/rdacarrier.html. The material type list will need to be generated and agreed on at each institution and should probably start in Access Services.

If you're seeing to different lists of material types, my guess is that something is mislabeled.

Does that make sense?

Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 06/Nov/19 ]

Andrea Loigman I was referring to the fact that there are separate material type lists in Aleph, one for Acquisitions and one for Cataloging. Sorry, I'll edit to make that clear.

So are you saying that you don't envision that cataloging folks would care about material type at all on the item record, because they have the format type? It's not derived from any part of a MARC record?

Comment by Andrea Loigman [ 06/Nov/19 ]

That was certainly the impression that I took away from the small group. MM or RM might assign the material type as part of their processing though, so they'd need to be aware of/familiar with them.

BTW - there might be times that a material type would change, but the format type never would (unless the RDA carrier list changes).

Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 06/Nov/19 ]

You mean like when something goes to binding? I'm not sure I understand that.

Comment by Andrea Loigman [ 08/Nov/19 ]

More like when something goes on or off of reserve, need to change the way loan work for various types of equipment or technology or start collecting additional types of media.

Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 08/Nov/19 ]

Right - but in that scenario it could be that the loan type is course reserves, not the material type. That would let us write policies for reserves that are equally applied regardless of whether it's books, CDs, etc.

Comment by Andrea Loigman [ 06/Jan/20 ]

If RM has the ability to create new material types, they will end up creating items that have no circ rule or at the least wouldn't fall under the expected circ rule.
I think that there needs to be a VERY serious conversation about permissions for this and/or that there should *not *be a way to create new material types in orders at all.

Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 07/Jan/20 ]

Andrea Loigman currently material types are pulled from the list of material types that users can control in inventory settings. If you see issues with adjusting that we could make some time for discussion in the next RM SIG meeting. This would be a challenge for a few reasons, but it is also currently a relatively high priority for the group. Do you think perhaps that is a misrepresentation?

Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 07/Jan/20 ]

Dennis Bridges I think it depends on whether the material type used in Orders is being pushed to inventory when the item is created on the order. If that's the case, it needs to be one central list since the circulation rules will use the material type on the item. Whether that central list is maintained in orders or inventory, I don't know that that part matters as much.

If the material type is not being pushed then to the item record, I don't know that it matters as much. The item record is what the circ rules will read. If it's not being pushed, I'd advocate for it being labeled slightly differently just to make sure there's an understanding as to what the orders list is versus what the inventory list is.

Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 07/Jan/20 ]

Dennis Bridges I think it would also be helpful to articulate the reason separate lists are needed. I know that our current ILS at Duke has separate lists for material type for orders and cataloging, but it's never been clear to me as a non-tech services person why two lists are needed.

Comment by Andrea Loigman [ 07/Jan/20 ]

If there was a way to create an agreement between acq and circ that let us use a singe list it would certainly save everyone a lot of work, but I can't begin to imagine how we'd make it work, especially in a large institution or consortia. There's just isn't a good enough communication model at most institutions.

I guess that I just don't understand why acquisitions needs a material type when format also exists? Having a third list of Material (RA), Formats (MM) and something else (RM) seems like a lot of repetition and potential for conflict. I must be missing something since it seems to me that acq should be able to use the same regulated list of formats as cataloging.

Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 07/Jan/20 ]

Thanks Erin Nettifee and Andrea Loigman The good news is that we are currently pulling the list of material types from inventory and for that exact reason. We use material type to create item records on behalf of the user/order and it is a required field in inventory. So currently one list that is maintained in inventory settings. This feature would cover having a separate list that is not shared with inventory.

FYI I have made some updates to the description in an effort to clarify what this aims to accomplish. I think we failed to capture here that a decision was made to use material types from inventory in the short term.

Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 22/Jan/20 ]

Summary from discussion: After discussing this issue at Wolfcon. In the following session https://wolfcon2020a.sched.com/event/YzF4/material-type-needs-from-orders-to-shelf (Material type needs from orders to shelf). It was decided by the group that having a second list would not be necessary as this is already required by inventory to create an item record. The material type in the resulting item record could be changed post order and this would not be reflected in the order record.

Generated at Fri Feb 09 00:12:20 UTC 2024 using Jira 1001.0.0-SNAPSHOT#100246-sha1:7a5c50119eb0633d306e14180817ddef5e80c75d.