Fees/Fines
(UXPROD-792)
|
|
| Status: | Draft |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | Fees/Fines |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Fees/Fines |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P2 |
| Reporter: | Holly Mistlebauer | Assignee: | Stephanie Buck |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | Current-ff-work, feesfines, resourceaccess | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
| Epic Link: | Fees/Fines |
| Development Team: | Vega |
| PO Rank: | 0 |
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 |
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R4 |
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R4 |
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R4 |
| Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 |
| Rank: Grand Valley (Full Sum 2021): | R4 |
| Rank: hbz (TBD): | R4 |
| Rank: MO State (MVP June 2020): | R4 |
| Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): | R4 |
| Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): | R4 |
| Description |
|
As part of the MVP, the Lost Item Fee Policy has two options for charging a patron for a lost item. We can charge a set amount or actual amount. The actual amount is found manually. This could be a third option, where the actual amount comes from the order. Some may think this could replace the current manual actual cost option, but I can think of reasons why you wouldn't want to just automatically charge the patron the order price. Also, not every item in the library will have an order price. Some are too old. Also, some items may cost more or less to replace now. The RA SIG will need to discuss this thoroughly. We are busy with the MVP right now so I have added this as a placeholder for future discussion. Update added on June 7, 2022 There are several ways this could be handled. Assumptions I have made:
Given the assumptions above, we could do the following...
(Note: See the attached file
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 28/Jan/20 ] |
|
Slack message from Erin to Holly on January 23... |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 28/Jan/20 ] |
|
Slack messages from Holly to Erin on January 23 and 28... |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 28/Jan/20 ] |
|
Erin, I made you a "Watcher" for this new feature in UXPROD... |
| Comment by Thomas Trutt [ 02/Jun/22 ] |
|
Depending on how this shapes up I will chat with CU about re-ranking higher.. I believe this would fall in line closer to what we would want for an 'actual cost' system. I'd like to see a fallback though similar to Voyager. If a replacement cost was set at the item level that was billed if no amount was set the default replacement cost was billed. |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 07/Jun/22 ] |
|
Thomas Trutt: We will be discussing this feature at the June 9 RA SIG meeting. |
| Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 08/Jun/22 ] |
|
I'm a bit "mentally" stuck on this in the sense that the price of the item when ordered often doesn't reflect the replacement cost of the item now - e.g., if I ordered a book ten years ago and now it's out of print, it might cost me significantly more to get the same item now, and I might want the "actual cost" to reflect that. I still think the use case as outlined makes sense (bringing in the Order cost), but I don't want to lose sight of the fact that in many cases a library may still want to be able to change the fine amount being charged to the patron. |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 09/Jun/22 ] |
|
Erin Nettifee: I totally agree. That is why I have been hesitant about blindly billing the patron the order cost. |
| Comment by Olga Kalachinskaya [ 21/Jun/23 ] |
|
Our library does prefer the automatic actual cost as we mostly use it as a deterrent for students at the end of the semester. When they see that they owe us money, they prefer to return the items. However the replacement cost has to be real, otherwise it would just make no sense and make people angry for no good reason. After we send the replacement bills, 95% of items come back. We wouldn't want to manually update all of them to just get them back. |