UXPROD-4186 - Getting issue details... STATUS
UXPROD-4134 - Getting issue details... STATUS
UXPROD-1845 - Getting issue details... STATUS
UXPROD-4168 - Getting issue details... STATUS
Problem(s):
When user has made the decision to make a claim for a piece of material the user will be able to generate and share that information with the vendor
Claim information can differ from one library (agency) to the next and even based on order type
Claims require management over time, there are often multiple events that occur while working on a specific claim.
Requirements and Use Cases:
| Requirement | Status | Priority | Use Cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| (SAMPLE) Library must be able to print claim to pdf based on a specified template defined in Settings | PENDING | HIGH | Library has identified that a material due for receiving is "past due" based on the expected arrival date and needs to notify the vendor of such. Library communicates via email or submits a claim in the vendor system. Copyright Office will also send paper mail to certain vendors because they are required to send "Registered" mail that is signed and returned (often now they are sending pdf copies alongside that paper copy) |
PENDING | HIGH | Copyright is actually sending claims to publishers. They manage claims differently from the rest of the library, with different legal wording in claims. | |
PENDING | HIGH | The system identifies that a material due for receiving is "past due" based on the expected receipt date. The system alerts a user that the material is overdue so they can take action. The system identifies the claiming deadline for the material in question so the user is aware of whether a claim can still be made, or how much time they have left to complete the claim.
| |
PENDING | HIGH | User is able to decide not to make claims for specific orders or based on the details of specific orders. | |
PENDING | LOW | User is not ready to claim material but wants the notification to appear again after a specific interval | |
PENDING | LOW | User is following up on a claim made by another librarian and that staff member is not available for consultation | |
PENDING | MEDIUM | The ability to run a report/generate a list of "past due" expected issues would be very helpful, so that we can pick and choose which issues we want to claim and send to the vendor in batches, rather than issue by issue. | |
PENDING | HIGH | Some vendors have very short claiming windows and LC does not have the staff to meet those deadlines in many cases. Automated electronic claiming would allow the library to meet those deadlines. If we don't meet the claiming window we often have to rebuy something and this value could be better sent elsewhere. | |
| Audit trail is useful when claim deadlines are tight and claims must be submitted within a specific window for a given item. Generally the window is around 90 days. | |||
| Monographs Specific | |||
VERIFIED | User is able to open a claim for a single title on a specific order | ||
| User is able to claim multiple titles from a given vendor. Often send a list of claims to EBSCO for example | |||
| Serials Specific | |||
PENDING | MEDIUM | Irregular shipments of serial issues are especially prevalent with exchange partners. In the case that there are 2 copies ordered it can be difficult to determine which issue for which copy should be claimed. | |
VERIFIED | User is able to open a claim for a single title on a specific order | ||
| User is able to claim multiple titles from a given vendor. Often send a list of claims to EBSCO for example | |||
Questions:
| Question | Status | Conclusion | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should claim forms be generated for a given order or a selection of orders? | CLOSED | Yes, use cases updated above. | Yes for all types of orders we will at times claim individual orders. We will also try to submit a list of titles for claiming to a given vendor that we order many things from |
| What order and receiving fields are required? | OPEN | ||
| Can you provide examples of your current claim form? For serials and for monographs | CLOSED | Yes, the library will provide a handful of claim letters. | The group will provide examples of a claim list sent to the large vendor, an informal claim sent to a foreign vendor, a template claim letter |
| Is there a use case in which in serials receiving a received issue does not trigger a claim for the prior unreceived issue? I.e., should receiving an issue automatically trigger a claim if the previous issue is unreceived? | OPEN | ||
| Is there a use case for searching open claims or viewing all open claims? | CLOSED | Yes, see comments | Both from a reporting and management level there will be search and filter requirements. Searching based on status, vendor, date range, vendor type, order type, division |
Notes
- LC currently has Voyager Claim functionality disabled. This decision was made many years ago and the claim function was disabled because it was not granular enough and would result in too many distracting alerts.
- Currently export list of items that need to be claimed from voyager. Voyager generates a claim file from the reporter module that is sent to servers where another system transforms that into a claim form.
- Currently copyright office is manually reviewing titles and identifying what needs to be claimed
- (From Dawn Rapoza) Tacking onto a point made by Megan: Even if receipts are checked in only at the holdings record level (Self-Contained Units; no check-in record used), I believe a purchase order is still created (Firm Order/Copyright/Exchange). Can order type (Firm Order/Copyright/Exchange) be used to differentiate between titles for which there are multiple orders? Other SMEs who have been doing this at LC much longer than I have can correct me if I'm wrong.
- (From Dawn Rapoza) Tacking onto a point made by Lauren: Even though there might be a purchase order with type = Copyright and a second purchase order with type = Firm Order (used for purchased subscriptions in Voyager) for the same title (representing multiple "orders"), a check-in record for each order might not have been created, for any number of reasons. Though, I think, quite often, the step of creating the check-in record in Voyager simply might have been missed. This can result in issues not getting checked-in or otherwise incorrectly routing/handling issues, necessitating possible erroneous claiming, which the publisher may or may not honor. Just another added layer of complexity.