Agreements
(UXPROD-573)
|
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | Q4 2019 | Parent: | Agreements |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Owen Stephens | Assignee: | Owen Stephens |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | ERM, po-mvp, resourcemanagement, team-mvp | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||
| Epic Link: | Agreements | ||||||||
| Front End Estimate: | XXL < 30 days | ||||||||
| Front-End Confidence factor: | Low | ||||||||
| Back End Estimate: | XXL < 30 days | ||||||||
| Estimation Notes and Assumptions: | Unable to currently give a good estimate on this because of the dependency on Acq/Order application supporting necessary integration points to support this | ||||||||
| Development Team: | Bienenvolk | ||||||||
| PO Rank: | 78 | ||||||||
| Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): | R2 | ||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 | ||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R4 | ||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R4 | ||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R1 | ||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (ERM Jun 2020): | R1 | ||||||||
| Rank: FLO (MVP Sum 2020): | R1 | ||||||||
| Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): | R1 | ||||||||
| Rank: hbz (TBD): | R1 | ||||||||
| Rank: Hungary (MVP End 2020): | R1 | ||||||||
| Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): | R1 | ||||||||
| Rank: Leipzig (Full TBD): | R1 | ||||||||
| Rank: Leipzig (ERM Aut 2019): | R1 | ||||||||
| Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): | R5 | ||||||||
| Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): | R2 | ||||||||
| Description |
|
In some circumstances there maybe a Hosting and/or Platform fee associated with one or more agreements, or separate to any specific agreement The nature of Hosting & Platform fees needs more analysis but it is expected that institutions will want to:
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Theodor Tolstoy (One-Group.se) [ 09/Oct/18 ] |
|
Ranked this down to a quarter after go-live given we can put this in a notes field when migrating. |
| Comment by Khalilah Gambrell [ 10/Jul/19 ] |
|
Owen Stephens - is the expectation that Orders would not support? My assumption is that Orders can provide some indication that a hosting and platform fee is included and/or that this information can also be attached to the agreement under Supporting materials. Thoughts? cc: Dennis Bridges and Ann-Marie Breaux |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 10/Jul/19 ] |
|
Khalilah Gambrell I think the question for me is what the relationship(s) need to be between these payments and resources and/or agreements. 1) The content fee (could be one-off) And that currently we've said that there is only one POL for each Agreement Line. If these two charges are just different invoices/invoice lines on the same POL then it all works, but if they are different POLs - which in this case they are because one pays for content outright, and the other is an annual access/hosting fee - so we have one one-off order and once continuing order - then we have a problem right now But interested to hear comments from you, Dennis Bridges and Ann-Marie Breaux because I definitely don't want to over-engineer this! |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 10/Jul/19 ] |
|
Owen Stephens Khalilah Gambrell I thought some of the libraries said that they pay annual fees without creating a POL. They create an invoice in their ILS, but do not associate it with a POL. Does anyone else remember that? If that's the case, then the link might need to come from the invoice instead of the POL? |
| Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 10/Jul/19 ] |
|
Owen Stephens Khalilah Gambrell Ann-Marie Breaux At the moment that would be 2 separate POLs unless the Library were to add the hosting fee as "Additional charges" in the POL. However, it would be dangerous to assume "additional charges" were always hosting fees. These could also be accounted for as adjustments to the invoice line that relates to the POL but I've never heard a specific use case for adding hosting fees as "adjustments" to an invoice line. At least not that I can recall. Most common scenario would be that these end up being two POLs and one of them (Hosting Fee) is set to NOT create inventory. |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 11/Jul/19 ] |
|
Dennis Bridges said:
This is where I see the challenge we have. I think the question is: what is the best way to record/show the link between the second POL to the resource(s) in question? The ERM subgroup was clear that this is information they want, and that the expenditure is explicitly linked to the resource |