Date

04 Mar 2019

Attendees

Time	Item	Who	Description	Goals
5min	Housekeeping		Notetaker -
25min	Circulation history	Emma Boettcher	overlapping features, part 2	Determine what information is needed at a glance regarding an item's circulation history
10min	Requests	Cate Boerema (Deactivated)	Can inactive users make requests?	Can inactive users make requests. If not, how should we prevent this?
20min	Declared lost	Emma Boettcher and Holly Mistlebauer	interaction w/ manual fines/fees	If an item is declared lost but does not have an associated fee/fine policy for automated fee creation, what is the desired behavior? (May only be needed by a few schools?)

Functional Area	Product Owner	Planned Release (if known)	Decision Reached
e.g. loans, fees/fines	Name	e.g. Q4 2018, Q1 2019	Clearly stated decision
Loans	Emma Boettcher, Holly Mistlebauer		Discuss with Rameka (TAMU) to make sure fees/fines will accommodate manual billing without affecting automated billing, and bring back to the group
Item state	Emma Boettcher		Display counts by shelving location to accommodate reserves Most important piece of history is "Where is it?" - the rest can be a click away
Requests	Cate Boerema (Deactivated)		Inactive users should not be able to request Should display popup preventing this similar to what we do when an inactive user checks out Should we include inactive users in the requester select popup? Yes because otherwise you may be confused why there aren't there. Many on call actually thought they should be included by default in user lists (currently you need to check a box to see inactive users) No override functionality is needed for this, as the best practice will be to go to the user record and set the user to active

Staff can manually mark an item as lost (e.g., as self-reported by patron)
What happens if automated fees/fines are not set up to be applied when an item is declared lost
How many institutions do not use automated fees?
TAMU-mixture-automated lost item processing fee, and then manually apply replacement cost-tracked by a report
The question is whether there has to be a different workflow for manually marking something as lost or if it can simply invoke the same process as the automated process
if there is no automated fee fine, how do we know when the matter is settled and the loan can be closed?
Is the loan processing fee charged by TAMU sufficient for the proposed manual approach or is something more needed?
Emma will work with Holly and Rameka to arrive at a solution for TAMU and bring it back to the group
Holly will bring back the fee/fine policies discussion to the group as a reminder

It needs to be able to distinguish between locations (was the item on reserve or not for the count of loans, IHU, etc.), likely no more then 3-4 locations over their lifetime
last date that it was loaned tied to count, last in house use date to that count

current and previous borrower
the most recent touch (who/when/where) and ability to quickly get to a more extensive history of all touches
difference between states, item state as opposed to processing state
ability to distinguish between item state update and a check-in that does not update the item state
okay to get to the broader history by clicking off the item record screen to another screen

consensus is no
pop up would tell you that the person is not allowed because requestor is inactive
this also needs to be released via API to the discovery layer for inactive users
Is there any need to be able to override this block and allow the inactive user to place the request? Or can we fix the inactive state and then do the request? We agree on the latter
Also we need the default view in all user lookups to be showing both inactive and active users, current default is active users only