Page Comparison

•   Bjorn: Can the po's be filtered based on what needs to be claimed? 
  • There will be a date in the pol to judge if it needs to be claimed or not. It's not based on the pieces it's based on the POL.  You can filter by order lines that are over due, or by ones that are currently just delayed.  You can filter by all of the lines a claim has been sent for. 
  • Bjorn: Can we filter by if it's a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd claim? We need some claim levels. We have different intervals between 1st, 2nd, 3rd..... 
    • In the beginning stage for claiming phase 1, there will not be a way. At the POL level, you will not be able to tell what was being claimed. Unless you add a note to the POL. 
  • Bjorn: It seems to be an order by order approach for claiming, The Saxon library has 500 claims per month.. We'd like to be able to filter by vendor, then have the action happen for the entire result list. 
    • Dennis: In phase 1, not is actually being sent. It's just an indication that a claim needs to happen/has happened. The 2nd phase does have an email function.  It would be by POL. If you have 500 POL's, you can get a list... but we don't have a build edit for POL's. 
    • Bjorn:  Can it be discussed for phase 2?
      • Dennis: Yes.  Bulk edit is being worked on for orders.  It might be in Poppy. This feature for claiming might work out well with that. 
  • From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone 12:15 PM
    And for a possible 3rd phase, could there be integration with Subscription Agent's Admin sites?
    Like Fokus or EBSCOnet, etc?
    • It has been discussed. It is on both road maps. 
  • From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone 12:16 PM
    Dennis, if a library is doing claiming say once a week or once every two weeks, can we filter by "claim date" to pull all order POLs with a claim date say before today (10/11/22)?!
    
    • You can filter this list to CSV, and send all 500 at the same time if they were all going to the same organization. But after you did that, it's a manual process to click on each pol to indicate it was sent.  Until we implement bulk edit.  Maybe we can do it as an action on the po.... I'll look into it. 
• From Kimberly Wiljanen to Everyone 12:22 PM
  It would also be helpful if you could filter on a date range --  from... to
• Peter: Just want to confirm this is a big issue for the German libraries as well. It would be very helpful to not have to click through each pol. It's great for a first phase, but looking forward to phase 2. CSV file is a great start. 
• Bjorn: Do other libraries have different intervals?
  • From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 12:23 PM
    We would use different claim intervals.
  • From Me to Everyone 12:23 PM
    At TAMU, we usually only claim one time. A while back we did a study on how often 2nd and 3rd claims were effective and decided it wasn't worth it.
  • From Peter Sbrzesny to Everyone 12:24 PM
    We also have different intervals for the 1st claim and the following ones.
    
    • For our libraries bulk edit of claims would be more important than different intervals.
• Bjorn: At the moment, the system knows which claim number it is and when it needs to be done. 
• Martina: We send a lot of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, claims.... it would be good to have a setting to be able to set those up and be able to edit those settings. 
• Bjorn: It's based on the resource type and not the organization itself. We can do some mock ups on it if you'd like as examples.  
• Dennis: Those of you that have these claim tiers, would you be able to use the phase one functionality?
  • From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 12:29 PM
    We would try using phase 1.
• Dung-lan: Is the feature the same for one time orders as well as continuing orders? It can be different... A one time order will have claims for the one piece. Continuing orders may have multiple claims over time for different numbers.
  • From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone 12:30 PM
    I agree!
  • Dennis: It's the same.  That is part of my question. For phase one, it is only really viable for one time orders.  Is it worth implementing phase one with the limitations it has. 
    • From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 12:33 PM
      We would need claims to be able to work with pieces before we would use for ongoing orders.
  • From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone 12:34 PM
    Is the Interval situation apply only to one-time or also to ongoing orders?
    
    • Dennis and Bjorn: it is used for both.
    • From Martina Schildt | VZG to Everyone 12:34 PM
      both
    • From Peter Sbrzesny to Everyone 12:34 PM
      Intervals are used for both.
• Based on feedback, I am not sure there is enough value in splitting this feature into a phase one and a phase 2.  Please let me know in slack if there is value for a phase 1. 
• From Björn Muschall to Everyone 12:37 PM
  We will put a proposal to Slack together with VZG and other German institutions

• Review “Order history/change log”

• Another option. to allow you to see what fields on the pol were edited with a note going to the change log to see. Maybe a 'show edited fields'.  
• Another possible design for this now, maybe have an icon.  Have a version history. Open it with an icon or an action in the action menu that opens all the different versions. 
• Image Modified

Dennis: How do people feel about this vs looking through a list of changes?

Bjorn: The version function looks great. Have you discussed this with other po's as an option for them in other apps?

Dennis: Yes, I have discussed this with the developers on how other po's can use this.  I am not sure of the priority of others, but for Acq it's a way to trouble shoot the complex interactions between invoices and orders. 

Kristin: Is this all po's?  - It's specific to a POL. 

• Dennis: A restore function is not a part of this, although it is something that could be done but that may have complications. 
• Will the orders be available in exports or reporting?
  • No, only current versions will export or reported on.

• From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 12:48 PM
  I like the version history - and it's comforting to me that we could go back to a previous version, if needed.
• From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone 12:49 PM
  As the order moves through its lifecycle, FOLIO automatically updates certain fields such as Receipt Status or Payment status based on activity in other apps.  Would those automated updates also create a new "version" in this order log, or would the log just track edits made by users directly? (sorry - can't turn on audio or video today)
  • Dennis: At his stage, only user edits. We are leaning towards splitting user edits, and an event log.  There might be another tab here to see the different types. 
  • From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone 01:00 PM
    Please do not split out
• From Scott Perry to Everyone 12:52 PM
  metadb has the version history for going back in history
• From Björn Muschall to Everyone 12:58 PM
  I know there are some concerns about Change log and GDPR compliance. I'll try to discuss what exactly with German libraries. Change log should be optional at least.