When on order level and click close, can choose from a long list of reasons for why you are closing the order. All the reasons should also be at the POL level.
Have encountered this more often at ongoing level, but also applicable to one-time orders.
Frustrating that your only options are that it stays ongoing or cancelled. May not be cancelled, may be complete, ceased, etc.
Or maybe it would automatically populate over. -- Only problem here is if you have an order with multiple POLs, might not apply to every POL. (e.g. one title ceases).
Dennis - Are there situations where the status needs to be different?
In multiple POLs could be variation.
Options have nothing to do with the order level, has always been at the wrong place so to speak.
Is this unique to electronic material?
What if we move reason for closure from the PO to the POL?
Could also have two options at POL closed / cancel, but PO would only have closed status then.
Heather McMillan (TAMU) 12:38 PM
example, we have a membership that includes four print titles, and we put them all on one po with four pol's. One of the titles ceased, the other three continued.
If POL had status of cancelled would you have different reasons for cancellation?
If we still allow the POL to be cancelled - options are closed or cancelled, but in both of those cases would apply a reason for closure/cancellation. Both would essentially be “Resolved.”
Status possibilities at POL would be closed or cancelled and in either case would be asked to specify a reason and add a note.
Does it still make sense to have note?
Yes, would be excellent if that were always editable. Cannot currently edit at PO level.
Does not need to be mandatorily filled in.
Martina Schildt | VZG 12:43 PM
Being able to edit would be very helpful
Vanessa French 12:43 PM
and if the note went in as a closure note type on the POL in the notes field
Would it be problematic to migrate reason for closure from PO to POLs?
One-time? - Fully received/Fully paid when workflow status is closed and reason for closure is complete.
For ongoing orders would not be problematic. Only two options are ongoing/cancelled.
Would be better to migrate reason from PO to POLs than to let that data disappear or better to not have reason for closure?
In theory could have PO with many POLs with many journal titles - vendor EBSCO, ongoing, subscription - 100 POLs with all journal titles. Over time, manage individual POLs as they happen. Wouldn’t be closing the PO, would be needing to manage the individual POLs.
Daniel Huang 12:50 PM
the more specificity the better
Reasons should be at the title level.
There is necessarily a different handling of one-time/ongoing orders.
Kimberly Smith (MTSU) 12:52 PM
I agree the One-Time versus Ongoing are different
Problem for one-time orders is related to business logic. Receipt status changed to fully received. Paid invoice, changed to fully paid. Once both done, completes the order.
Joe Reimers (EBSCO) 12:54 PM
In broader strokes, I think there's an opportunity to examine, essentially, Serials Acquisitions vs. Monographic Acquisitions, and how can we best accommodate both
Daniel Huang 12:54 PM
I'd argue we do a single PO per one-time just to make sure there is nothing janky with multiple POLs that we regret later
Daniel Huang 12:54 PM
like let's not even talk about returns of physical material lol
Kimberly Wiljanen 12:55 PM
At MSU, we do a single PO for firm orders, but multiple POLs for our approvals
If you unopen an order, might not want to lose that information.
Will need to explore how to manage this when you are closing orders from the PO level. From POL pretty straightforward.
Does also get reflected in inventory. (e.g. shows that something is cancelled, when actually ceased).