| :10 | Acquisitions/Resource Management Implement Receiving and closing POs | Kristin Martin | - no.52
- Can we change the business logic for automatically closing POs so once a one-time PO has all POLs listed as "Fully Paid" the PO will close regardless of the Receipt Status? As we get toward fiscal year close, we are facing a situation where we have a lot of POs (around 5000) that are open and will re-encumber because we have paid in advance of receiving. We are going to have to manually close all of these POs, which is obviously going to take away time from actually receiving. If there are use cases for wanting a PO to stay open, if paid, but not received, then can libraries be given the option to have paid POs closed regardless of receipt status?
- Kristin's IT Dept was able to run a script to close the po's
- Is there a way to adjust the logic to close the po after they are paid?
- Dennis: Is this a good use case for bulk editing...
- Kristin: This was a new way of treating the po's, but it's not uncommon to prepay when we are at the end of the fiscal year.
- From Scott Perry to Everyone 12:16 PM
The scale would be less normally, but not uncommon. - From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone 12:16 PM
To Dennis, if you change the receiving status to something else (such not required or received) before rollover, can you still receive the piece after rollover?
- From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone 12:19 PM
I like the Bulk Edit solution - From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone 12:19 PM
both to Kristin's question. - From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 12:19 PM
Order status tied to payment status works for Mich State.
- From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone 12:20 PM
I do not want the order to close automatically if we have not yet received the item expected.
- From Kim Wiljanen to Everyone 12:22 PM
You may have a pre-payment, but the item still has not been received & needs to be claimed - From Ann-Marie Breaux to Everyone 12:22 PM
Yes - that's my take on it too, Sara. If receipt should be ignored, then it seems like it should be set to Receipt not required, instead of changing the definition of Order status - From Scott Perry to Everyone 12:23 PM
If it is receipt not required, an item is not created at point of order.
If you are creating items as part of orders. - From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 12:23 PM
We used the filters to find 'paid' orders that were 'awaiting receipt' and vice versa before FYRO, and manually closed the orders. We also 'unchecked' the 're-encumber' box when appropriate. - From Ann-Marie Breaux to Everyone 12:23 PM
Do you mean receiving pieces or inventory items, Scott?
- From Scott Perry to Everyone 12:24 PM
I mean inventory items, I think.- There were also many encumbrances that remained despite the "release encumbrance" being checked. I think that is fixed with Lotus.
- From Dennis Bridges to Everyone 12:26 PM
Yes this is one of the issues that had to be fixed. - From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone 12:26 PM Having a session to discuss rollover experiences is still on my list - waiting for a proper time when most are back from summer vacation.
- From Scott Perry to Everyone 12:27 PM
But bulk edit for anything Acq related is at the earliest Orchid? - From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone 12:28 PM
To Close them with Reason for Closure--as a Bulk Edit thing
- From Ann-Marie Breaux to Everyone 12:29 PM
Scott: it's Receiving pieces that don't get created. Inventory item creation or not is based on the Create inventory setting in the POL. Just tested in Snapshot and confirmed. When set to Receiving not required and Create Inventory set to Instance, Holdings, Item: Item was created. Receiving piece was not.
- From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone 12:29 PM
Long term, maybe we could eventually move toward enabling each institution to locally configure their business logic for automatically closing orders. In settings they could indicate what criteria should be met before an order is automatically closed by the system (receipt status, payment status)...
- From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone 12:32 PM
I've still seen receiving pieces created on orders that have a receipt status = "Receipt not required", so I'm a little confused. We added topic #68 asking why this is...
- Correction - the pieces aren't created, but there is a receiving record +1 to Dung-Lan
- Question about why when an online order is created with 'receipt not required', the title will still show up in the Receiving App.
- Dennis: Sounds like we have a story got disabling 'add piece' or hiding the receiving title when receipts not required.
- From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 12:37 PM
+1 to Julie/Kristin - we can still filter to awaiting receipt on paid orders - From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone 12:39 PM
I just checked my notes and the Bulk Edit roadmap lists Poppy (R2 2023) as the target for orders
|
| :40 | Acquisitions/Resource Management Implement POL able to be deleted off of OPEN One-Time Order | Sara Colglazier | - no.53
- POL able to be deleted off of OPEN One-Time Order
- [in Kiwi, hotfix 2] Is the following expected behavior? Scenario: I set up a One-Time Order, with one POL, Receiving Workflow: Sync ... & Create inventory: Instance, Holding, Item. ... I open the Order. Now in Inventory, I have an Instance with Marc as Source (previously imported to link Title to), a Holdings record, and an Item with Status OO. All good so far. ... Now I receive the item via the Receiving App. I check off: Display on holding. ... All good still. & Inventory the Item now shows status In Process, and the Holdings shows the Receiving history and Acquisition info. Just as I want: great. ... Now I go to Check-in, and check-in the Item, and in Inventory now the Item shows as Available. .... ... Now here is the thing I am really asking about: I go back to the OPEN Order Record, then to the POL--Fully Received, but not Fully Paid at this point--and I am able to Delete the POL--even without first having to UNopen the PO. And when I do that, the POL is gone, the Receiving record is gone, the Piece is gone, the Acquisitions and Receiving history info disappears from the Holdings record. .... The Item remains because Available (I assume) .... When the Item is In process, it also remains; but if On Order, it disappears. ... The Open PO also remains open, but has no POL, and so it a bit of a mystery thing. .... Once I have linked an Invoice (even if only Approved but not yet Paid) then the POL won't delete off an Open Order. .... Still, this does not seem like good behavior to me. I can see if I UNopen the PO then I should be able to delete the POL, but NOT if it is Open.
If there is some reason for being able to do this, then at the very least there needs to be a pop-up modal that asks me to confirm that I want to do delete the POL EVEN THOUGH there is a Receiving Piece already received etc. - Dennis: Is the major concern to prevent people from doing this?
- Sara: Yes
- Dennis: Are there use cases for removing a pol from a one time order?
- Sara: I think not
- From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 12:41 PM
Isn't there a permission for preventing the deletion of a POL? I can delete POLS. I would only do so if no money was encumbered. We had some errors happen, with no money encumbered. I have a log of these deletions. If money was encumbered, we would cancel the POL. Mich State Acq staff cannot delete POLs.
- Dennis: You could give (or not give) permission for specific people to delete po's or pols.
- Sara: I would prefer this not be tied to permissions. We all make mistakes.
- Dennis: Maybe make it so you can't delete the last pol? Or for one time orders, have to unopen the order first.... The reason this is possible is because there are use cases for removing a pol from ongoing open po's.
- From Scott Perry to Everyone 12:47 PM
Is that related to the bug related to changing a fund on a POL where the encumbrance isn't released on the original fund. This is fixed with Lotus HF2.
|