| Structuring the budget in FOLIO | | - Focus has shifted to mostly e formats
- what is ongoing?
- What are one-time purchases
- multi-disciplinarian is the standard 'new' focus
- folio will allow some new things
- with groups
- groups can be displayed
- what types of things that need to be seen across funds
- while expense classes are used within funds
- expense classes allows for some flexibility (year to year)
- selectors vs patrons
- still using liaisons - this structure needs to be represented
- but if after 2 years, something could change and thus the structure could easily adapt to reflect the changing fund ecology
- this way, funds get tracked - while groups allow for tracking across funds
- mentioned Thunderjet (testing instance)
- 1 ledger or 2 ledgers
- operational or restricted
- these two things (operational or restricted) need to be seen in the same place
- instead of splitting these, grouping allows to view together
- there are a lot of groups - but this allows for the flexibility and to answer questions most likely asked
- question Kristin M from chat ("When you say restricted, are these endowed funds with restrictions on what you can spend them on?")
- caps for spending can be added (names & amount can be added to help manage amounts spent)
- Again, trying to draw out, and distinguish what needs to be tracked across funds vs what needs to be tracked within funds
- ref: streaming one-time licenses or perpetual streaming licences
- question about where an order gets connected
- humanities, streaming, etc, where would order info get attached
- but, is moving to multidisciplinary model for streaming materials (rather than being tethered to specific disciplines)
- testing can be done in thunderjet (updated as of 22 October 2020)
- demo in thunderjet instance
- adding fund IDs
- Would love to see space used better for GROUPS in the Finance App
- Q: Michael from Alabama:
- likes the grouping
- Are some of the groups actually larger groups (to create relationships between groups)?
- Some groups are in a hierarchy (there needs to be a way to see these relationships
- Supergroups?
- wants to be able to view relationships w/o having to go out and search for everything
- This needs to be managed at the group level
- the hierarchy needs to be better represented
- from Kristin M in chat ("You might need to name your groups based on hierarchy")
- Dennis B from chat (" have started working on a feature for organizing groups. see here for more info :)
UXPROD-2562
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
")
- from chat ("Michael is referring to
UXPROD-2715
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
which aims to expose the “Initial allocation” number and reorganize the budget values so they are easier to read and follow")
- sometimes tags could be used - but some folks want to search by selector
- or is it preferred to use group or fund?
- DB: (suggests there may be a feature to add a user to a fund) <needs to verify>
- does that selector need to have money directly allocated (or to use a larger fund that multiple selectors use)
- wants to use a URL to pass to people who need to dig into the data
- Is the descriptions being used to describe funds (such as gift funds)?
- some descriptions for gift and endowment funds are long and are pushing the descriptive info down (expandable view?) (trying to use screen real estate better)
- some comments about budgets and years (specific years)
- some notes need to carry over while some are tied to s specific year
- how to manage or interact with these notes will vary
- liaisons get swapped around in departments sometimes
- group 1 or group 2 (hierarchical groups to use the hierarchy for efficiency)
- most often used by Michael Arthur from Alabama
- ref:
- can associate a color or shape to add groups or categories
- this would allow some more filtering
- controlled vocab?
- it is currently a bit cumbersome to add funds to groups
- ref:
-
UXPROD-2715
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
- reorganizing the budget detail (bringing details to groups ad ledgers)
- Showing a number for total funding.
- Expense classes would be a characteristic of a fund, but you could have multiple expense classes in a fund. Use of expense classes in any way is optional
- Might want multiple expense classes to provide a different slice of a fund, and differentiate at a different level (e.g., format versus subject)
- Can see a summary of the expense class across all of the funds within a single group.
- General thoughts: what's more important: subject organization or format organization?
- MH prefers format, because the distinction of format matters more, and more purchases feel interdisciplinary
- Want this at the top of the hierarchy
- Chicago/Alabama funds are organized first by subject for selectors
- Still would like some ways to organize better, especially multiple ledgers: should the ledgers be a silo or can we allow groups to fluidly move across ledgers?
- Acquisitions units could help deal with multiple libraries/ledgers
- New issue to help control access with Acquisitions units:
UIOR-618
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
- A fund can be part of multiple acquisitions units
|
