2024-04-26 Acquisitions Meeting notes

 Date

Apr 26, 2024

 Participants

Aaron Neslin

Kimberly Pamplin

Peter Breternitz

Ann Crowley

Kimberly Smith

Robert Heaton

Anne Campbell

Kristin Martin

Sara Colglazier

Daniel Welch

Lisa Maybury

Sara Luttrell

Dung-Lan Chen

Lisa Smith

Scott Perry

Dwayne Swigert

Lucinda Williams

Susanne Gill

Heather McMillan

Masayo Uchiyama

Susie Skowronek

Jackie Magagnosc

Nancy Pelis

Sven Thomsen

Jean Pajerek

Okay Okonkwo

Victoria Anderson

John Banionis

Owen Stephens

 

 Agenda

  • Housekeeping -

    • Reminder - voting to prioritize acq-sig-topics

    • Next meeting - Tuesday, April 30, at 1 pm that Dennis plans to show Quesnelia release highlights

    PC Update (Kristin Martin )

  • Business -

 Discussion topics

Time

Item

Presenter

Notes

Time

Item

Presenter

Notes

:00

Housekeeping

Dung-Lan

  • Housekeeping -

    • Reminder - voting to prioritize acq-sig-topics

    • Next meeting - Tuesday, April 30, at 1 pm that Dennis plans to show Quesnelia release highlights:




PC Update


Kristin Martin

PC Update (Kristin Martin ) -



:15

 

Aaron

  • Conversations/discussions about toasts and inconsistency in Acq modules (one example)

  • Created a page to document when inconsistencies are found

    • Owen suggested having a column for knowing if it’s still broken so when a po is looking at the list they’ll know if it still needs to be addressed.

    • Sara suggested to expand it to messages that are not actually descriptive. Where when you hovor over the little i, or when a message pops up saying something will happen if you proceed, but that doesn’t actually doesn’t happen.

      • Aaron said that has been a discussion among the po’s about where/how to record this type of thing.

      • Owen: From his perspective, this would be a good place to collect this type of information. Describe exactly what was seen. Needs to be very clear when this message happened, under what circumstances, and what the desired message is.

      • Owen Stephens 8:27 AM
        (re Change page name of page documenting errors to) For “on screen messages and text”?

      • Sara Colglazier 8:27 AM
        In the 2nd heading maybe also make clear that one should indicate FOLIO Flower + CSP #

      • Owen: If there is a change to the English text, the translated text may need to be updated as well. In addition. Translation might need to be updated if someone is using non English text. A translator might have a better way of describing what is happening.

        • Susanne said they see most error messages are in English even though they are using the German language.

      • Aaron: Maybe add a column for what language the message was in?

:40

 

 

Implementers Topic # 124

  • Order App: Changing the vendor does not change Material Supplier in POLs

  • When changing the vendor in an existing PO, the vendor is not updated in the POLs Material Supplier under Resource Details. 

    This happens in all scenarios - open order, reopened order, unopened order. This means staff then have to go into every POL to change the vendor.  

    We would always expect the vendor to be changed in the POLs if it is changed at the order level - I know this may not be the case for all libraries.

    Perhaps it could be an option when changing the vendor whether or not to change the Material Supplier in all of the POLs.

  • Aaron: Is there is a scenario/situation where you wouldn’t want to update material supplier in all pol’s?

  • Kristin: Does anyone else fill out the material supplier?

  • Kimberly Smith (MTSU) 8:44 AM
    If we change vendors, we close the PO and reopen a new one.

  • Scott Perry (UChicago) 8:46 AM
    Is this one of those features that isn’t really used?

  • Lisa Smith: They use it at Michigan state. Can see where a ProQuest e book though Gobi might want to have the vendor as Gobi and the supplier as ProQuest.

  • Kimberly Smith (MTSU) 8:44 AM
    If we change vendors, we close the PO and reopen a new one.

  • Scott Perry (UChicago) 8:46 AM
    Is this one of those features that isn’t really used?

  • Aaron: No one in the meeting seems to be using the same use case that is described by Susan Newbery. Dung-Lan will see if we can schedule a time for her to attend a meeting.

:54

 

 

Implementers Topic # 125

  • Problems in handling Multi-Volume Sets

  • One-Time Orders of Multi-Volume Sets are problematic in FOLIO currently [Orchid]. Multi-Vol sets come in various flavors and with different scenarios:

    (1) It is known at the outset that it is a multi-volume set. There is a single price, but 2+ items that are sold as a single (1) unit. In this case one can choose to either (a) use the Receiving Workflow option of Independent Order and Receipt Quantity and keep the Cost Quantity physical & Location Quantity physical as 1, OR, (b) divide the vendor's unit price by the number of expected items and enter it as the Physical Unit Price and set the Cost Quantity physical & Location Quantity physical to the expected items number so that the total for the Estimated price = the vendor's unit price. And then Open the Order. If one goes with option (a) then after receiving all pieces, one has to remember to return to the POL and change the Receipt Status to Fully Received otherwise the Order will not Close after also being Paid. In the case of option (b), the Order will Close automatically on its own after the last piece is received and the invoice paid, and all the items are created at the time of opening the order [so if needed one can place holds on all of them at that time] BUT the single unit cost is divided across them.

    (2) It is NOT known at the outset that it is a multi-volume set, there is a single price, the vendor indicates a single unit for sale, but in fact there are 2+ items. Assuming it is undesirable to UNopen the Order again--otherwise one could could open it again & handle like described in (1)--but if unopening again is not desirable then one can either (a) use the Receiving App to receive one of the volumes so that it is linked up with the POL and Inventory–adding info in the Piece Comment field to show on the Holdings record and Notes variously–besides then in Inventory creating the additional Items directly, on the same Holdings record with the Comment, and adding Notes to the Item etc. ... OR (b) edit the POLs Physical Unit Price to X# so that when one then creates additional Expected Pieces in the Receiving App on the Receiving record, which then triggers the Cost Quantity physical & Location Quantity physical to increase one ends up with the orginal Estimated price = the vendor's unit price again. Basically implementing (1b) above after opening with the same +/- (- = the single unit cost is divided across the items). As to (2a) the issues are: additional Items are not linked to the POL via Receiving App Pieces and do not show in the Receiving Record, etc. & the Receiving Note may be missed, which may indicate that the Items are Requested, so that only the one initial Item has a hold and not the whole set.

    (3) It is NOT known at the outset that it is a multi-volume set (there is a single price, the vendor indicates a single unit for sale, but in fact there are 2+ items) AND the POL has already been Fully Paid (as a single unit re: cost & quantity). At this point--as far as I can tell--while one is still able to edit the POLs Physical Unit Price, one is NO longer able to create additional Expected Pieces in the Receiving App on the Receiving record. So at this point then the options become (a) to handle like (2a), OR, (b) to Cancel the Invoice, then proceed according to (2b), and then re-entering etc the Invoice. Now however is not only the single unit cost divided across the items, but also (a) one has to tweak the invoice number to make it unique from its first-now cancelled version AND the manual entry of the invoice pulls in the now Cost Quantity physical which is greater than 1 [this may also happen for (1) and (2) depending on when the invoice is entered or EDIed into FOLIO and linked up to the POL].

    What would be great [and I think take care of all of the above outlined scenarios] is re: One-Time Orders set to Receiving Workflow: Synchronized Order and Receipt Quantity [and actually generally too] if (a) the Cost Quantity physical and Location Quantity physical were not tied to each other. That is, that they did not have to match. And (b) for the Receiving Expected Piece quantity not to be tied back to the Cost Quantity physical but only tied to the Location Quantity physical. And (c) for POL Receiving Workflow: Synchronized Order and Receipt Quantity, it NOT be the creation/adding of Expected Pieces in Receiving that changes the quantity of the POL Location Quantity physical, but rather the other way around. That is, one would have to be able to edit the number of the POL Location Quantity physical and that then would change/add how many Expected Pieces there would be in Receiving. & The POL Receipt Status would have to be tied to the Location Quantity physical and not to the Cost Quantity physical.

  • Need to continue this conversation.

 Action items

 Decisions