2021-07-13 Acquisitions Meeting notes

Owned by Heather McMillan
Last updated: Mar 22, 2022

Date

Attendees (40)

Agenda: 

  • New items 

      • Discuss editing POL instance connection
      • Discuss processing invoices against previous years

    Items from previous agendas needing additional discussion 

    • Discuss EDIFACT order export. This refers to  UXPROD-531 - Export FOLIO orders in EDIFACT format DRAFT  which has been identified as a very high priority in the community pointing exercises. We will review a proposed workflow for EDIFACT orders based on previous discussion and revisit use cases to be sure nothing has been missed
    • Discuss adding a status of “Claimed” to the POL (from 7/6 agenda) 
    • Discuss updating unit price for renewals (from 7/6 agenda) 
    • Discuss usability of Allocation “To” and “From” (from 7/6 agenda) 
    • Review show Piece on Holdings mock-up (from 7/6 agenda) 

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
Starts at the top of the hour
  • Discuss usability of Allocation “To” and “From” (from 7/6 agenda) 
Dennis
  • Dennis: Lets pick back up with the discussion on Allocating. 
  • Need to be looking at a budget to do this. 
  • Actions menu: Two choices to adjust: 
    • Allocate - increase or decrease
    • Transfer - movement between funds
  • Currently get two fields at the top, from and to. 
    • Default will be the fund you are looking at. 
    • From: Decreases the fund
    • To: Increased the fund. 
  • Looking at making this two separate actions. 

To try and make it clearer: Make it two steps.  


Dennis: How do people feel about this? Several people responded in a positive way to the change. 

If you transfer between two funds, the allocated value stays the same. 

Question: Do we want to remove the possibility of removing money in a ledger that way? Or should we have a specific function of 'move allocation/?

Okay - It's a nice feature to have. 

From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone:  12:16 PM Or, could it just be a 2 step process: decrease, and then increase

Dennis: It could be. The benefit of using the to from is in the transaction history you can see where the funds came from. There is more visibility for how the money moved. 

From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone:  12:16 PM Much clearer and obvious

Sara: Moving allocations is doesn't happen often. I would prefer the two step process. Far more often you are correcting an input error. 

From Robert Scheier to Everyone:  12:17 PM Can that be a configuration choice
From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone:  12:18 PM Add a note field to indicate where the money came from or going to?

From Virginia Martin to Everyone:  12:18 PM Yes, use a note. Agreed agreed agreed
From Scott Stangroom to Everyone:  12:18 PM I currently use a note when transferring from one Aleph fund to another.

From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone:  12:19 PM That's what we did in Voyager using notes to indicate increase or decrease allocations

From Susan Martin to Everyone:  12:19 PM
I am probably in the minority - do not mind a "to" and "from" in one step.

Susan: I agree, moving allocations is not common. But I can see specific use cases here. Moving money from a one time to an ongoing fund. 

Dennis: Other thing we can do is allow a separate and specific permission for this. A permission for 'move allocation. 

From Virginia Martin to Everyone:  12:21 PM I don't think we'll use it, but the UI design for the function is much better and allays my concerns.
From Robert Scheier to Everyone:  12:21 PM Can it be in settings?

Dennis: Probably can have it in settings rather than a permission. Or maybe both. Anyone that can manipulate allocations can do this. 

From Virginia Martin to Everyone:  12:23 PM Yes, I wouldn't want a separate permission for this for someone who can do increase/decrease allocations.

Dennis: Because it's possible, it makes sense to let users do it. Will speak with the devs to see what the most effective way to add. 

From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone:  12:24 PM I can ignore it. No need to hide it for me. ;-)

Okay - Does it allow you to enter a negative number. 

Dennis: No, we rely on the from and to.  Decrease will always be in the 'from'. 

Dennis: Is it even clearer to not allow you to select a different fund? If you are in African History, you wouldn't want to select a different fund. 

From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone:  12:26 PM +1 about the edit fund that you are on only


Starts 26 minutes after the hour

UXPROD-531 

Discuss EDIFACT order export.

Dennis

Last week validated use cases to be able to edit open orders for export. 

Also talked about acq method.  

We want Acquisition method to be a controlled vocabulary. 

From Virginia Martin to Everyone:  12:27 PM Yes, it would be lovely to be able to locally configure the list of Acquisition methods.

Dennis: Will be tied to acq methods in an organization.  For this organization, for these acquisition methods, choose export method. 

Virginia: Automating export of what?

Dennis: Of order records. 

Dennis: This appears in the vendor information accordion. 

Drive the export based on account numbers. There will be a setting for account not specified if there isn't an account number. 

If have different base accounts though Gobi you may want separate export notifications for different configurations. 

For any given account number, you can associate it with one integration detail configuration. 

Should the decision to export be determined by the acq method in the pol and be based on organization? Yes, this provides the flexibility we need. 

From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone:  12:36 PM Dennis, what you described sounds reasonable to me and should work in reality.

From Virginia Martin to Everyone:  12:37 PM That makes sense to me, but we don't do EDI order export at Duke.
From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone:  12:37 PM We did EDI order export to Coutts in Voyager.

Dennis: Export details populated from pol.  POL's can have different account numbers. Which could now mean different export methods. Maybe that's an edge case. 

  • Could set these details at the purchase order level. 

Sara Colglazier: that sounds scary to me. It would be better to set the export setting at the po level, not the pol level. 

How does it log the email? Does it show folio as the sender?
Dennis: There would have to be a sent via. You would configure those details in the organization record as well. 

From Sabrina Bayer to Everyone:  12:51 PM In Regensburg, we only send purchase orders via emails (we do not use EDI for orders).

From Susan Martin to Everyone:  12:51 PM I did that at Chicago as well - email with a csv file attached.

Michael Phillips: We do that as well if we can't go through a vendor website. 

Dennis: It's not likely you are changing that from one pol to the next. 

Do export details need to be shown at the PO Level? 

From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone:  12:58 PM Uploaded--is that info that is gotten back from the other end? So like Success. 

Dennis: Yes. 

Action items

  •