2024-09-10 Acquisitions Meeting notes

Owned by Heather McMillan, created
Sep 10, 2024
5 min read

 Date

Sep 10, 2024

 Participants

  • @Heather McMillan

 Agenda

Housekeeping -

  • WOLFCon 2024 (September 24th-26th), register for general admission thru Friday, Sept. 13th, for virtual attendance thru Sept. 23rd. 

  • ACQ SIG meetings scheduled during WOLFCon 2024 week - both cancelled, Tuesday, Sept. 24th & Friday, Sept. 27th, ACQ SIG will not meet

  • Received a request for devoting an upcoming ACQ SIG meeting focusing on GOBI integration with FOLIO and what the workflows look like, etc.  Looking for volunteers who have this setup to either showcase/demo your process or share experiences/tips/tricks you learned with others who are looking to get this setup for their own libraries,  Welcome any thoughts/ideas on what you'd be able/willing to share or what you'd like see in this meeting

  • Next scheduled meeting, Friday, Sept. 13th, at 9 am EST

Business -

Time

Item

Presenter

Notes

Time

Item

Presenter

Notes

:00

Housekeeping

Dung-Lan

:16





Review the latest mocks for claiming (Joseph Reimers)

  • The best course of action is too create a new claiming app.

  • Be in place with sunflower release.

  • General idea, claiming app will differ from receiving app in that it will be receiving pieces rather than receiving titles. When you open the claiming app it will already be searching for receiving pieces that are late, and that have claim active.

  • Filter on location, ship too, also have custom fields.

  • By default, ordered by expected date with oldest at the top.

  • image-20240910-172036.png

     

    You highlight what you want to claim, or select all, then have the option of sending claim, marking pieces as unreceiveable.

  • Molly Driscoll 12:22 PM
    Beginning in Quesnelia and moving forward, is it required to select 'Claim active' on the POL in order to undertake claiming functions (e.g. send claim, delay claim) or is it only required to check that if you wish to update the default claiming interval?

    • Joe: Need to ask Dennis about this. Theoretically, you can take action without claim being active because it’s changing a piece status. It’s a filter as opposed to a requirement.. So if claim active, you are paying attention to the title for claiming. But you can find it without the claim being active and you can change the status without claim being active.

    • Joe, not taking anything away from receiving. This is a bulk claiming interface as opposed to individual claiming.

    • Lisa Smith, Mich State 12:28 PM
      How can you tell if something has been claimed, but not yet received.  Trying to avoid needing to separate recently claimed items from never claimed items.

      • If a piece is late but not claimed, it’s status is Late.

      • If it has been claimed, the status is claimed.

      • Resets the claim timer, and once that runs out will be set to late again. Working on functionality to differentiate 1st, 2nd and 3rd claim. This is slated for Sunflower release.

      • Anne Campbell 12:30 PM
        Can the claim job for EDIFACT Claims be scheduled to run by organization.  For example run the job every two weeks.

        • Yes, that is the intent.

      • Kristin: How will one time order end up on claim list?

        • You set claim active, at the pol level for what the anticipated (expected) date it.



:35

 

 

  • Review duplicate invoice UAT (Joseph Reimers)

  • Everyone was able to complete the tests.

  • Everything was pretty straightforward.

  • Need a means of identifying the new copy, can be hard to know which is which.

  • No showstoppers

  • Suggested enhancement

    • Make an obvious change (e.g. vendor invoice) to indicate which is the new invoice.

      • should we change it to “copy of [invoice #]”

      • Duplicate → automatically open in edit screen

    • Scott Perry 12:39 PM
      I like “copy of” invoice number

  • Upcoming UAT

    • Centralized role management (Sept.16)

    • Display credits separately in financial activity (Sept.16)

:41

Review central ordering UAT

Dennis Bridges

  • Review central ordering UAT (Dennis Bridges)

  • 5 participants

    • Some were groups of people

    • Some testers were not able to complete the test. Unclear that the 2nd user was not supposed to see anything in date tenant.

  • Feedback Summary

    • FOLIO specific order behavior was confusing to new testers.

    • Separate tenants for ordering and and receiving seemed unnecessary for some users.

    • Benefits of separate tenants for different parts of the workflow were unclear.

    • Different labels for selecting location while creating POL was confusing.

    • Creating order successfully multiple attempts for some users. They received errors on first attempts.

  • No showstopper defects identified

  • Suggested enhancements

    • Streamline order creation workflow as it pretrains to selecting locations vs existing holdings.

    • Receiving instructions were difficult to understand. More specific instructions would have made testing easier.

  • Next Steps:

    • Fix export bug that blocks location data from being exported.

    • Fix issue with Piece creation

    • Add detail to error messages. “Order could not be saved”. “The piece was not saved”. Not helpful messages, need more information.

  • Upcoming UAT

    • Central Role management (Sept.16-20*maybe, probably later)

      • For System with enhanced consortium support enabled.

    • Display Credit Values (Sept. 16-20)

:52

Demo of ordering in central tenant

Dennis Bridges

  • Creating po in the central tenant, in a multi tenant setting

  • image-20240910-175405.png

  • Can see all three orders if you have permissions.