Ordering functionality that FOLIO needs to stay competitive
(UXPROD-3440)
|
|
| Status: | Blocked |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Ordering functionality that FOLIO needs to stay competitive |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P4 |
| Reporter: | Dennis Bridges | Assignee: | Dennis Bridges |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | Q2fromQ1, acquisitions, crossrmapps, inventory, orders, q2-2019-spillover, round_iv | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Potential Workaround: | DB: Allow the user to link multiple instances to a single POL such that the POL describes the package and the instances, holding, items make up its contents. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Ordering functionality that FOLIO needs to stay competitive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimate: | Small < 3 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimate: | Medium < 5 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Thunderjet | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Rank: | 50.1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: FLO (MVP Sum 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: hbz (TBD): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Leipzig (Full TBD): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Leipzig (ERM Aut 2019): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Purpose: Users require the ability to order packages and other groupings of material. These require a special type of record in inventory that allows them to be managed as a multiple of items that are detailed else where. High-Level Requirements: Future Considerations: |
| Comments |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 12/Sep/18 ] |
|
Hi Dennis Bridges. I noticed this didn't have an epic so I assigned Acquisitions. Thx. |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 21/Sep/18 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt and Dennis Bridges. This is now assigned to Charlotte. Can we move it to the Inventory epic? |
| Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 21/Sep/18 ] |
|
Hi Cate Boerema, I was going to inquire as to why it was re assigned actually because there are three others for Instance, holding and item record that we are assuming we need to implement something for on our side to create inventory. Charlotte Whitt should I create another issue for our side of this task or did you not intend to reassign it? |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 21/Sep/18 ] |
|
Hi Cate Boerema Dennis Bridges - being a little late to the party For implementation of container records in Inventory (
|
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 24/Sep/18 ] |
|
Charlotte Whitt, We don't use umbrellas in UXPROD except to store deprecated (old) roadmap items. I am actually thinking about purging them, as I don't think anyone is using them anymore. Anyway, this does seem to represent work that needs to be done on the Acquisitions side so let's re-assign this to Dennis. |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 24/Sep/18 ] |
|
I am marking this feature blocked by
|
| Comment by Theodor Tolstoy (One-Group.se) [ 09/Oct/18 ] |
|
Chalmers will not need this for Go-Live, since they do not intend to have any e-resources in Inventory at this point, if not needed by some other app/module. |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 23/Apr/19 ] |
|
Hi Cate Boerema - this is tabled as a Q2 2019 feature, but the work on Container records in inventory is not started yet (and therefore blocking this feature). Please note that
|
| Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 23/Apr/19 ] |
|
Cate BoeremaCharlotte Whitt As it has been marked as not needed by Chalmers the thinking was this would be moved out to Q3. However, even to move this to Q3 work may need to begin on the inventory aspect of it in the near future. Thus it is definitely important to see this come together. If it doesn't we will need to shift our approach to receiving packages regarding inventory interaction. |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 24/Apr/19 ] |
|
Hi Dennis Bridges and Charlotte Whitt. It's odd that this feature is ranked needed to go-live by everyone except Chalmers while the actual container record (
|
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 24/Apr/19 ] |
|
Hi Cate Boerema - when looking at the GAPS analysis 2019.
|
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 24/Apr/19 ] |
|
Hmm. Okay. I guess there must be some kind of misunderstanding. Might be worth reaching out to some of the institutions that ranked this one needed for go live but
Anyway, it sounds like we'd like to get
|
| Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 24/Apr/19 ] |
|
Cate Boerema and Charlotte Whitt I'm wondering if the disconnect is whether or not they can order and receive packages without container records. Which to this point I would say is possible, but the Order becomes the thing that relates the associated instances together. If a user is comfortable with that perhaps the "Container" becomes a little redundant. Particularly if orders are being created by ERM. Just thinking out loud a bit here... |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 25/Apr/19 ] |
|
Looping in Owen Stephens and Khalilah Gambrell. Owen, I have heard you speak about the value of container records for the ERM workflow. Is your current thinking still that they are needed and what are your thoughts on priority? We are having a hard time making sense of the discrepancies between the early implementer rankings of this feature and
|
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 25/Apr/19 ] |
|
Cate Boerema - do you know why there is difference in the rankings shown in feature
Maybe all POs need to go over all open features, and make sure, that all UXPROD features are updated according to the GAPS analysis spreadsheet? |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 25/Apr/19 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt. Aren't you supposed to be having a day off? |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 06/Jan/20 ] |
|
Hi Dennis Bridges - I just noticed that you have assigned this feature as Q2 2020. But please notice that it will not be possible to create Container records in Inventory from the Order modules, PO line, before we have implemented container records in Inventory
I don't know what the Cap. Planning group's thoughts are on this Holly Mistlebauer Cate Boerema ? CC: lew235 |
| Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 06/Jan/20 ] |
|
thanks Charlotte Whitt I was just updating the fix version for all acquisitions issues according to the cap plan. I know it is dependent on work from your team that will not likely be available but I don't want to leave it blank. Will you be working on a target version for
|
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 07/Jan/20 ] |
|
Hi Dennis Bridges - I think the Core Functional development team will be stressed very thin on resources the next couple of quarterly releases making MVP ready, so I think the safest (and most realistic) plan will be to move this feature to Q4 2020 for the time being. I'll talk with Cate Boerema and lew235 - if we can start do some initial work on
|
| Comment by Jacquie Samples [ 23/Sep/20 ] |
|
Using Dummy records in place of Container records is a bad idea (work around for UX-PROD-492), so the blocker to this development is the Work-around that shouldn't be used since it will cause problems for RA, MM, and RM in the future. We need container records! |