2021-02-05 Resource Management SIG Meeting

Minute taker

@Jesse Lambertson

Announcements/Updates

• Product Council minutes, 2021-02-04

  • New Documentation SIG

  • Need a volunteer from RM SIG to be member and coordinate RM Documentation

@Kristin Martin

• New governance model 

  • someone from your institution should have been contacted about this WG

  • Different membership levels linked here.

  • Kristin advocates signing some kind of intent today (Feb 5)

  • A vote will come soon

• Documentation SIG

  • Some conversations were happening behind the scenes

  • Convener for the new Documentation group : Emily Fowler (ByWater) 

  • Asking for members from all the SIGs

  • Person would liaison with a specific SIG but help to make sure the various functional pieces are taken care of

  • Kristin suggests a rep from the ERM subgroup should be there as well

  • Hoping for 2 people from RM SIG to join the Documentation group

  • Some people will be asked on the next-wednesday meeting

• roadmap task force

  • under the purview of the PC

  • More info will be coming in the next few weeks on this

Fiscal Year Roll Over User Acceptance Testing feedback

@Dennis Bridges

• Successful finishing of the testing

  • Met over a week / deemed valuable for the group who did the testing

  • Environment determined to be stable and that the data was persistent

  • Many asked for more time

    • (some did 5 rollovers) - 

  • some wanted more time in advance to share and be ready (and for planning)

  • There were no show-stopper bugs, everything was allowed to roll over a number of years

  • A number of bugs and issues have been Identified, given the following tag : acq-dev-uat 

  • Time stamping is an issue given that it is running in UTC

    • Setting to use the local time zone setting instead of a server time zone setting

    • ie: something ending today ends at 11:59:59 today

    • From the chat ("I don’t know if this is helpful but for ERM dates we work only at the Date level, not DateTime. I think Users does similar for date of birth - possibly other modules too. This avoids dealing with the time aspect ")

  • Issue at the beginning when certain finds were not rolling over when no money was allocated (fix was added for this in the middle of the bugfest)

  • Lots of helpful feedback

    • such as (there were plenty of others):

    • having a pre-screening to evaluate the rollover before actually run

    • to save rollover settings

    • Not just to deliver a report, but to walk through the decisions so the full context of the roll-over can be evaluated

    • wording and consistency through the process to be cleaned up

    • There is a way to choose encumbrances, if the re-encumbrance is not checked, then that re-encumbrance will not take effect (so, this is deemed a higher priority bug fix)

  • Next steps:

    • implement updates (fix bugs and add enhancements)

    • performance testing

    • Also, to evaluate how long the fiscal rollover will take

    • test cases will be created for this during bugfest

  • Dates and times are confusing, but Dennis wanted to know whether the new fiscal year would be started before the rollover

    • from chat (May ask us to review what the difference is between Manual and RE-encumber is? When would I ever want to check Manual? )

    • from chat (We also roll after the prev. FY has ended )

    • from chat (I think that’s normal - in my experience finance depts tend to want to commit against the year in which the goods will be received )

    • from chat (Equally payments can sometimes be made after the end of the financial year by agreement if the goods were received in the previous financial year. Its a while since I did this for real, and in different institutions there were different years )

    • Can adjust the dates if the user has the right permissions

    • Need to figure out a way to pick a previous fiscal year and roll it over even the new one has started

    • This is being looked at

    • Dennis asks of those who can join the discussion next week or through slack, to send feedback directly to him

    • Someone asks if there is a way to be 'not controlled' by time

    • need some more flexibility

    • Dennis demos to show these confusions over time and the movements of the next fiscal years (because of dates already set up that define them)

      • it was confusing that one had to select a fiscal year

      • so, just trying to figure out why these kinds of decisions are made

      • Some transactions are taking place in the accounts on the last day before the rollover

      • More coming in this (the recording and demo in the recording might be helpful to catch the nuance)

      • Clarity:

        • Will start ordering before the rollover. orders will roll over, but don't want open invoices

        • When you don't rollover until mid july, you still want to fiscal year to start july 1.

        • wait until the roll has happened and orders can be entered after the rollover

        • (Rollover and then allocate)

        • Question from the group: when would someone want to manually use to toggle

          • intended to exclude that order to be sent automatically

          • Confusion over 'manual' and 're-encumber' 

          • Currently., no auto communication is being sent to vendors

          • from chat: (My previous experience chimes with what Virigina said (but my previous experience was Aleph so maybe not surprising!) 

          • (We used to have an “acquisitions freeze” for a week or two at the FY end )

          • (But that was policy rather than system enforced )

Data Import updates: Schedule for EDIFACT, embedded MARC

@Ann-Marie Breaux (Deactivated)

EDIFACT invoices

• coming at this from the data-import side

• 2/3 through EDIFACT import requirements

• who are the vendors used for EDIFACT invoicing?

• Default Gobi profile coming with IRIS

  • name can be changed

  • edited to add details for local needs

  • can be duplicated as needed locally

• EDIFACT field mappings are new to many

  • more complicated than mappings in MARC

  • Acquisitions units is the first place the local copy could be edited

  • for EDIFACT invoices, the 'lock total' amount would allow a number added

  • Question from the chat (In which FOLIO release are we expecting to see this functionality (EDIFACT data import) - is it Juniper? ) -  it will be in IRIS!

  • (MARC orders/invoices that won't be ready until Juniper )

  • Mostly use the description from the POL

  • Vendor field mapping will vary from vendor to vendor

  • some data in these fields are pulled from their respective drop-downs

  • Can switch to a manual mapping or defaults if POL funds are not being used in the mapping profile

  • There will be a job profile for importing files

    • action: create invoice (or something)

    • FOLIO record type: invoice, associate mapping profile

    • job profiles can be complicated, but for the EDIFACT invoice, there will be one action 

    • Will deliver 12 field mapping profiles

    • Would assign a job profile 

    • Review, make sure everything that needs to be there is there

    • everything should be connected in the next 3 weeks

    • will need a place to test

      • all the necessary elements needs to be there for the testing (could be complex)

      • MODDATAIMP-364 , linked here. 

      •  EDIFACT testing

      • Right now, invoices will not be using EDI from the organization's record

      • data import designed it to be usable 

      • new profiles are created on the tenant level