2022-02-01 Acquisitions Meeting notes



Ann Crowley, Martina Schidlt, 
Ann-Marie Breaux, Mary Moran,
Bethany Blankemeyer, Masayo Uchiyama
Beverly GeckleMichael Phillips,
Bill Verner, Nancy Finn,
Dennis BridgesNancy Pelis, 
Dung-Lan Chen, Natalya Pkiulik, 
Dwayne Swigert,Okay Okonkwo
Emily RobertsonPeter Sbrzesnsy, 
Heather McMillan, Sabrina Bayer,
Janet Ewing, Sara Colglazier,
Jean PajerekSarah Dennis, 
Joanna Cerro, Scott Perry, 
Julie Brannon, Scott Strangroom,
Julie Stauffer,Shannon Burke, 
Kathleen Norton, Steve Selleck, 
Kimberly Pamplin,Suzanne Mangrum, 
Kimberly Wilijanen,Suzette Caneda, 
Kristin MartinVirginia Martin, 
Lisa Smith,Winter White, 

closed_caption 20220201.txt


  • Current: Tuesday, February 1, 2022

    Housekeeping -

    • Please rank UXPROD-3435 UXPROD-3435 - Export invoice data in delimited file format IN REFINEMENT if possible particularly if this is a very important feature for your library 
    • Reminder - we are meeting this Friday, Feb 4, 2022 at 9 am EST

    Business -

    • Update on the EDIFACT order UAT (Dennis B.)
    • Discuss use cases for deleting receiving records
    • Display "Rush" in receiving and on invoice - review UXPROD-3179 UXPROD-3179 - Carry POL 'rush' indicator to corresponding receiving records and invoice lines OPEN  

Discussion items

  • UAT Edifact export
  • A few things were identified. A few bugs found that have been added to the backlog. 
  • Code Freeze deadline has been extended by one sprint. 
  • We will have a little more time to do part two of this testing.  This part will be about flagging orders for export and creating the edifact files. 
  • Should be happening at the beginning of next week. Hope to start testing Monday. 
  • Feedback from part one testing was discussed. 
  • Added some information to the Manual po toggle. 
 12:10 Deleting receiving records
  • In the receiving app
  • Need to talk about the ability to delete the receiving title
  • Is there an expectation or use  case where you want to remove the receiving records?
    • Julie: We were trying to make a correction where a po was linked to the wrong record. We ended up accidently duplicating expected pieces. 
    • From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone 12:14 PM
      The use case we can think of is handling errors - ditto to what Julie is saying.  How will we handle a situation where a copy was received against the wrong PO accidentally (when the same copy of a title was ordered on separate POs).
  • Dennis: For a title that has 'receipt not required', should those titles be hidden from the receiving area unless you specifically wanted to see them?
    • No response
  • Sara asked how people are managing title changes. 
    • From Lisa G Smith to Everyone 12:35 PM
      In the case of a title change, Mich State cancels the PO for the 'old' title, and creates a new PO for the 'new' title.
    • From Joanna Cerro (she/her) to Everyone 12:36 PM
      For journal title changes, I usually relink the PO to the new Instance and make a Receiving note.
    • From Virginia Martin to Everyone 12:36 PM
      Here at Duke, we prefer to move the PO from the old title bib to the new title bib to keep the payments all together.
    • From Peter Sbrzesny to Everyone 12:37 PM
      At GBV we usually close the old subscription order and create a new one for the new title.
    • From Sabrina Bayer to Everyone 12:37 PM
      In Regensburg, we move the PO from the former bib record to the new bib record (with all Information like invoices) and make a note.
    • From Jackie Magagnosc to Everyone 12:38 PM
      I feel like it's much cleaner to close out the old PO and start a new one when the title changes
    • From Joanna Cerro (she/her) to Everyone 12:38 PM
      The problem with relinking an existing PO, is that you're required to unopen the PO and reopen, which sometimes asks you to delete pieces that have already been received.
    • Martina: At GBV we close the po, but even within our network it is done differently. SOme like to move the po, some like to close it out and create a new one. 
    • From Virginia Martin to Everyone 12:39 PM
      alternate perspective re: Jackie's comment - nothing about the order has actually changed, so keeping it all on one order makes sense for continuity of the order
    • From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone 12:39 PM
      +1 to Joanna's concerns
    • Dennis: Here is the link to the story this situation relates to. 
    • From Dennis Bridges to Everyone 12:39 PM

      type key summary assignee reporter priority status resolution created updated due

    • From Virginia Martin to Everyone 12:40 PM
      it sounds like there are probably system limitations involved in each organization's decision making about how to handle title changes
    • Dennis: This functionality is not implemented yet. Folio should allow you to edit your pol, and choose a different instance. When you do that you have to make a decision about the related records. 
      • Might want to move all the items
      • Leave it, I'll go to inventory and move the ones I want to move
    • We'll have more time to discuss this on Friday if people want. 

UIREC-191 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  • Long lists of receiving history in the receiving area
  • Suggestion: For both expected and received pieces, move to a paginated list.
  •  Able to see 50 at a time. 
  • Or, can filter for chronology. or if you wanted to filter by other data points, you should be able too. 
  • There was some talk of removing some pieces from the list. Example used was supplements. TO make it easier to deal with these pieces, we might include filters in the action menu. So if you only want to see supplements, you check the supplement box. 
  • Ann-Marie: In the holdings record inventory that distinction is the mail run, supplements, indexes

Dennis: Need to review the rush review data point next time