Item states (status)
(UXPROD-1321)
|
|
| Status: | Draft |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Item states (status) |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Darcy Branchini | Assignee: | Thomas Trutt |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | round_iv | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Potential Workaround: | Using dummy patrons to place requests or using check in notes to indicate where to send an item. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Item states (status) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimate: | XL < 15 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimator: | Michal Kuklis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front-End Confidence factor: | Low | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimate: | XXL < 30 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimator: | Marc Johnson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Estimation Notes and Assumptions: | No bulk editing of needed for
Significant changes to check in process |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kiwi Planning Points (DO NOT CHANGE): | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Rank: | 93.1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Leipzig (Full TBD): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Current situation or problem: Libraries need a way to indicate that an item is needed for staff workflows. Many libraries are used to doing this with features like check in / check out notes, or with fake patrons, but those are difficult to manage and tend to have a high rate of error because they must be maintained manually. In scope
Out of scope
Use case(s)
Proposed solution/stories
TBD: Receiving app Links to additional info Questions |
| Comments |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 20/May/19 ] |
|
Emma Boettcher Can organisations define their own set of item processes (that an item can be needed for)? |
| Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 28/Jun/19 ] |
|
Emma Boettcher, can you clarify the relationship of this UXPROD to
|
| Comment by Emma Boettcher [ 28/Jun/19 ] |
|
Erin Nettifee thanks for bringing that to my attention. Fix versions were added to the features as a result of the capacity planning, but that was without controlling for the logical order of things, and I need to go through and remove those where they're inaccurate. I was originally thinking that this would be blocked on
|
| Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 01/Jul/19 ] |
|
Hi Emma Boettcher – that does make sense. What I'm trying to do is to best trace what is actually being planned for implementing all of this and what might be in place in order for a library to go live in Summer 2020. I had thought I had understood from the last few RA SIG discussions that Needed For would not be in place by next summer, and so I'm hoping to learn about what would be in place of the three-pronged setup if needed for wasn't part of it. |
| Comment by David Bottorff [ 09/Jul/19 ] |
|
This should probably be go-live for Chicago, based on our discussion of a bare-bones approach at launch. A more robust version can wait longer. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 30/Aug/19 ] |
|
Emma Boettcher Cate Boerema Dennis Bridges Discussed this at Chalmers this week. There are item status, request, and receiving implications. Here's a workflow where this might be needed: 2. I need to figure out which books have holds and which don't. I don't see hold info in the order line or receiving. Should I? Maybe we should add it, so that I'm aware of it during receiving. Since the request may have been added after point of order, the system would have to automatically know about it and update the order with a link to the request info, then show a pop-up during receiving. 3. To start the patron notice process for the hold books, I have to check in (circulation) the books. That will trigger the book to go on hold (if the check in service point is the same as the pick up service point) or In transit (if the check in service point is different from the pick up service point). 4. So I check in those 2 books and they end up on hold shelves, then getting checked out to patrons, then getting returned. 5. When they get returned, I need them to get back to cataloging, so they can get fully cataloged and have spine labels attached. We've come up with 2 possibilities so far: 6. Meanwhile, we have 18 that do not get checked out to a staff member, have a status of In process, and are handed to cataloging. Who makes an indication that these books are now over in cataloging, and how? For now, the workaround will be not to make any alert, and just leave them with the In process status. Once cataloging finishes their work, those books will be checked in, which will change the status to Available. Again, that's an OK workaround, but ideally, the expanded status would help folks know they are in process and sitting in cataloging. I think Chalmers will be raising the priority of this feature, but I also wanted to document this discussion we had today, in case it's of use in the future. |