| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|
| | Ann-Marie | - In the slack channel is a survey on google docs wanting to know if any libraries needed approval for po's before they can be opened. Please take a look by Friday and respond.
- If you are importing EDI invoices, and you have invoice or invoice line level changes, it would be helpful to have a sample.
- Samples that are not EBSCO invoices, right?!
From Ann-Marie Breaux to Everyone 12:04 PM
EBSCO invoices are fine too - the more variety that I can gather up, the better.
|
| :04 | Review the "Rollover preview" design workflow | Dennis: | |
| Acquisitions/Resource Management implementers no.43 |
| - invoices: "Pay immediately" flag: Would other institutions find it helpful to flag invoices that need special "pay immediately" handling by their AP system? At Duke, we sometimes need to process payment more quickly than the standard processing time and we need a way to communicate that in the voucher extract to alert AP staff. In our current system (Aleph), we use a defined string of text in a note field, but it would be preferable to have a distinct data element.
- From Bill Verner to Everyone 12:21 PM
Net 30
- From Peter Sbrzesny to Everyone 12:23 PM
It would be useful to have such a functionality. We do not have it in our current system.
- Dennis: Would the time frame vary at all?
- From Ann Crowley to Everyone 12:23 PM
We wouldn't use it, but I understand the need for it
- From Bill Verner to Everyone 12:24 PM
It just means that AP should prioritize for payment and obviates the 30 day waiting period - From Scott Perry to Everyone 12:24 PM
This is managed within the AP system for us and we don't communicate it. We are changing enterprise level systems next fiscal year so that could change. I certainly understand the need to communicate a change to the default in the AP system.
- On a different schedule than the currently agreed window
- Dennis: Would this mean the standard is net 30, and this flag would be saying it needs to be paid in less than 30 days? Is it getting it to the top of the que, or does it need to be a specific date?
- Julie: we don't communicate a number of days, just that it needs to be paid asap.
- From duchen to Everyone 12:26 PM
Overdue invoices should have similar treatment/notes, too, to have it expedited somehow. - From Lisa Smith - Mich State to Everyone 12:28 PM
We wouldn't use it; checks are produced for us upon uploading of voucher info. - From Alissa Hafele to Everyone 12:28 PM
As I understand it, Stanford would use this functionality. - From duchen to Everyone 12:28 PM
Yes to what Dennis just asked. - From Alissa Hafele to Everyone 12:29 PM
The functionality we have now indicates to AP to pay the invoice immediately (as described by others). - From Ann-Marie Breaux to Everyone 12:32 PM
That makes sense too - I can imagine estates being in a wait, wait, wait, then OK hurry up and pay now! mode (after dealing with family estates the past few years....) - From Lisa Smith - Mich State to Everyone 12:34 PM
With our multi-year payments, we generally create a new one-time PO each year. - From Julie Stauffer to Everyone 12:34 PM
A single invoice with multiple due dates
|
| :38 | Acquisitions/Resource Management implementers no.44 | Orders: Add order POL Receipt date - why editable? | - add PO line: Why is the "Receipt date" an editable field when creating a new PO line? If the user enters a receipt date this could cause confusion since the order hasn't actually been received through the Receiving app. Unless there are use cases for editing this field during PO line creation, could it be changed to an inactive field on this form to avoid mistakes and confusion
- From Lisa Smith - Mich State to Everyone 12:41 PM
One stop shopping for approval workflows would be great! - From Bill Verner to Everyone 12:41 PM
Though mostly we would currently do this via a batch process - From duchen to Everyone 12:44 PM
If PO is not opened, then the pieces won't be generated which means they can't be received if the pieces don't exist?!
|
| : 50 | Acquisitions/Resource Management implementers no.45 | POLs and Invoice lines: subscription dates. | Prompted by a question from Kimberly Pamplin at Texas A&M in slack on 1/12/22: "I notice that the "renewal date" and "subscription to" dates cannot be edited once an order is opened. Is it intended that these dates will update automatically? If so, what triggers them? I notice for example that filling in the subscription to and from fields will then populate them for invoice line creation, but I'm not sure how they are supposed to be updated once a subscription year is paid for." Also from Julie Brannon at Duke: The field labels are inconsistent between orders and invoices for these dates even though data flows from the order line to the invoice line. Is there a reason they're different, because if not, we should probably keep them consistent between apps: Order line: Subscription from, Subscription to
Invoice line: Subscription start date, Subscription end date.f
|
