2020-12-04 Resource Management Meeting Notes

Owned by Kristin Martin
Last updated: Dec 04, 2020 by Martina Schildt
4 min read

Date

Attendees

Discussion items

Minute taker

Martina Schildt


Announcements/Updates

Kristin Martin
  • PC: the project will be loosing Cate Boerema and Emma Boettcher
  • if people know of others who might be interested in taking over one of the now available tasks, please let PC know
  • new governance model: changes are linked in PC minutes
  • Product Council minutes, 2020-12-03

UXPROD-2455 - Getting issue details... STATUS .

POL Material Type and potential for custom fields.

  • other use uses potentially for reporting codes
Dennis Bridges
  • configurable "Order material type" field
  • local fields
  • reporting codes
  • institutins needing more detail could add that
  • fields could be added by the system admin
  • different types of fields could be added
  • would appear in select list
  • limitations: fileds must appear within defined accordeon
  • searching and filtering not possible currently
  • creation happens in settings
  • users can hide fileds and thereby archive them if needed
  • question by Charlotte: why is searching not possible?
    • Dennis: it can be done but has not been implemented
    • the terms are stored in the database
    • has not been in the scope of the initial implementation
  • would this satisfy the need to have a unique material type in the order record
  • question in chat by Julie: Would the custom fields reside on the POL or the header or both?
  • Dennis: both is possible
  • question by Martina S.: could you have multiple custom fields on one record and could you have the custom fields in receiving app as well?
  • Dennis: yes, it seems users can have as many custom fields as needed
  • Julie in chat: And please add custom fields to Funds on the finance app too :)
  • comment by Scott Stangroom in chat:
    UMass would use for example, Material Type in the Orders (at the POL level) if there were no other way to pull reports of lists of orders by material type.
  • concerns are: adding custom fields prevents order records to become more complicated for every institution
  • Virginia: why not move all fields to custom fields that are not needed by every institution; there is already a lot of information in the order record that is not needed by everyone
  • answer: because you cannot search for custom fields
  • institutions would get needed fields much quicker than when they were hardcoded into the apps
  • Kristin says and SIG agrees: custom fields will be useful; you need to know about the limitations
  • Owen in chat: Agreed completely Kristin - the two questions are separate
  • from a technical perspective there does not seem to be much difference
  • being able to search on custom fields is key
  • Sara in chat: And reporting, besides searching and/or filtering
  • Scott Stangroom: Is it too technically difficult to add (or not add) custom fields to the index for filtering / searching / retrieval.
  • Sara: And we should also not forget Lloyd's comment above about export, mapping etc
  • Kristin: Do we have custom fields in Inventory Instance records, etc.?
  • Owen: We have Supplementary Information in Agreements which are tenant definable which is similar although the implementation is different
  • Owen: migration from custom fields to single fields is harder than the other way round
  • Owen: we had that in Supplementary Properties in Agreements - Leipzig use it for a reporting requirement And we had quite a lot of discussion about whether that was the appropriate way to do it before pressing forward with it
  • Virginia: position of the fields will be important
  • position fields in more important locations
  • Owen: I think having a feature to implement custom fields for Orders, POLs, Receiving would allow us to see how these rank
  • Owen: If it ends up being done before any particular individual field then institutions will almost certainly make their own decisions about whether they use it to do material types etc.
  • current rankings speak for desire to have custom fields
  • more rankings would be good


  • enhancements needed for custom fields to meet requirements:
    • ability to search and filter
    • export from system with records
    • position fields in more important locations
  • path forward:
    • create a feature for adding custom fields to orders; start with feature in relation to POLs
    • start assessing the community's desire
    • capture use cases in the specific feature

Features that need RM SIG Review



Dennis Bridges

Issues that need RM SIG review.

  • UXPROD-2665 - Export records from search results in acquisitions apps
  • there have been discussions on it in App Interaction recently
  • Dennis shows mock-ups for orders
  • question by Sara: Will only the Orders or also with their POLs be exported?
  • POL fields can be exported as well
  • users can chosse which fields they need to export
  • export file will be downloaded by the browser
  • there will be a message that export is running and when it is finished
  • Sara: I really love this Export tool!!
  • Kristin: will this be similar for invoices?
    • Dennis: yes; there is no feature so far (only orders and inance)
  • Owen: would it be easier if all fields would be added to the display; might be helpful if you want to export most fields, in contrast to all or some
  • question by Julie in chat: Would we be able to save an export setting to use next time? So we don't have to set it up each time for exports that we run frequently
  • Scott Perry in chat: And many times you could use this as a selection set to run against LDP for more in depth data.
  • Julie: For example, In Aleph we can see the "history" of report runs and apply the same selections to this current run


Question by Sara: Could we get Acq Units added to POLs, for example? To be able to search and filter that way when in POL

Dennis: there is an acq unit assignment on the POL; users just cannot filter for it on POL level

Owen: Where it gets really hard is when you go to searching across two apps of course - and that goes as much for Agreements & Licenses as it does across Agreements & Orders or any other combo

Action items

  •