...
- If you have a bunch of items coming out of a process at the same time, it would be hard for staff to clear processes (through warnings or whatever) one by one.
- Third option - use needed for.
- Rather than having the process end manually, have the needed for end manually. And that could be cleared at the start of being processed, versus being cleared at the end.
- This option would offer more flexibility for libraries who could choose when to manage the data - at the beginning or the end. Doesn't really clear the issue of "this was sent back to circ" in error, though.
- All of the processes here are still basically manual.
- David - can institutions have a setting where they choose if processes are cleared manually or not? That can allow institutions to decide how much they care about the error checking.
- Emma - would this be tenant level, or process level? Erin - the process level would be ideal. Emma - it could be hard to get it developed - the more granular you get, the harder it is to get the development to happen.
- David - I think the ability to configure the warn is closer to the model we're trying to get to with the workflow engine.
- Emma - so is there still a need to keep the needed for on the item while it's in the process? Erin gave an example of a process that is interrupted - e.g., an item was being worked on, and it was then damaged.
- Laura - in the case of damaged, it's likely not onerous for me to reset the Needed For and then send it to Preservation.
- Erin - so then how would Preservation know to send it back to you? Laura - we need multiple needed fors. Emma - yes, that's in the development plan.
- Erin - example of a shelf of items getting damaged. Laura - well, you'd need bulk edit for that.
- Emma - should, in this case, if the process is cataloging, and the needed for is cataloging, should removing the needed for remove the process?
- Erin - no, you shouldn't program that. We need the flexibility. Laura - yes, we'd need to fix that as humans.
- David - so you're saying that something could have a process of cataloging and a needed for of cataloging? Erin - no, I want that to be changed. But I think there are some processes and needed fors where both values could be the same, and so I don't want to forbid it programmatically.
- Emma - Christie & Susan, what do you think? Susan - I like options. Christie - I think this is OK. What happens, though, if there's delay on work? EG, it's needed for cataloging but it sits on a shelf. But that seems OK.
- Erin - how would you know where the items are if they're in that Needed For but haven't had the Process set?
- David - libraries can rely on different ways to do it. They can have catalogers check items in (make them service points.) Erin - but what of libraries doing slips? David - we'd need to figure out what shows on the slips?
- There needs to be follow-up on the slip forms to know what data is there.
- Erin - I think libraries will have different ways to do this. There's a check-in API, you could have circulation staff set a specific process as well as needed for. We also need to understand how discovery layer understands this information too. What do patrons see in the discovery layer for an item that has a needed for of cataloging and a status of In Process.
- Emma - so what happens if a process is interrupted, and then it is checked out to the patron - there would need to be a warning to staff about that. Should that talk to Needed For? Erin and others - no. Emma - if there's an error, what should happen? Erin - it wouldn't happen in the Check Out app. You'd go to the item record to assign the Needed For if it was in error. David - yah, it'd be nice to do it in the Check Out app to save time, but that's not a crucial development requirement right now.
- Emma - sharing wireframes. Changes to item state are right now in the Actions menu, which is not going to scale well.
- Emma - you might change Needed for and In Process at the same time. So it probably needs to be in its own form / process.
- Emma - there could be permissions issues that keep things on the action menu. But if not, what's ideal?
- Erin - having it all in one screen. (Users is able to have some permissions controls on accordions, so that might be interesting to explore.)
- Emma - will staff doing this be familiar enough with the item record to navigate it for this?
- David - is there an advantage to keeping the changes in a separate form? Emma - I don't think so. There are ways to work with it.