Since the change to Alma's new visualization, when receiving the document from the order (POL) there are two behaviors that, in our opinion, are regressions:

- When we mark the check for “Keep in department” Cataloging copy, this check is not marked for future reception. We request that this check be kept marked by default.

- When the reception date has to be entered, marking a date before the current date on the calendar is not allowed.

What we are asking for is that, since this improvement that has been presented (display of all data integrated in the POL), when we mark the check for “Keep in the department” Copy cataloging, this check is left marked for a future reception. In addition, it is allowed to put a past reception date. These two features are allowed from Acquisitions > Receive and Invoice > Receive. However, they are not permitted since Alma's improvement of displaying everything integrated in the POL is the most useful, in our opinion.

If a library uses Alma's interested user functionality on purchase order lines, there is limited ability to remove that information, based on the parameter "po_line_remove_interested_users."

We propose improving the functionality by:

• Allowing libraries to have interested users removed even if they did not receive an Alma letter about the PO line;

• Allowing libraries to have interested users removed if their patron record has expired or been removed from Alma.

This would bring functionality closer to that of the request anonymization workflows that are managed in the Fulfillment anonymization workflow.

Currently the data visualization do not support export as Excel or CSV function for those user that do not have Design analytic role. It would be much more useful to users if exporting Excel/CSV function is provided to a more general purpose report consumer.

According to current Alma Analytics behavior, deleted courses and deleted reading lists are not retained in Analytics. (link)

This is contrary to the behavior of Alma in other areas, such as repository data, where deleted records are retained in Analytics. Their status is tracked as a "lifecycle" field.

Alma courses and reading lists should mirror this behavior for consistency and to ensure that a library can continue to report on the full scope of record usage.

erin.nettifee@duke.edu 24. Apr 2025

This was suggested back in 2020 on the Idea Exchange:

https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/41841358-retain-course-reserves-info-in-alma-analytics

Library staff must be able to record and expose how each resource is authenticated accurately.

ACCURATELY RECORDING how resources are authenticated:

1) default options in the Implemented Authorization Method are not customizable by us. We want to be able to control what shows in the dropdown and what order options appear. Currently, we must open a ticket with Ex Libris to do this.

2) default options in the Implemented Authorization Method do not encompass the categories we need. New authentication methods routinely come up. We would like to be able to add new categories as needed without having to ask Ex Libris to do so

EXPOSING how resources are authenticated:

--providing information to staff who troubleshoot end-user access problems: we cannot assess and correct problems if we do not know which authentication method is in use

--staff planning, we need to know what level of staffing and expertise is required and how it is changing. Seeing a snapshot of how many resources are used and which kinds of authentication will help this effort.

--technology planning: we need to be able to see trends for horizon planning. If a particular authentication method is becoming required by more vendors, we need to be able to plan for outreach, costs, and infrastructure)

Having the data and snapshots of what proportion of our resources use x, y, z authentication method would let us understand and target action if something changes related to a specific authentication method. For example, if the server that hosts ezproxy is getting upgraded, which resources are impacted? If the University adds or removes IP ranges which vendors do we have to contact?

We would like to propose the addition of the Library-only note field in Alma to the panel on the right side of the reading list page. We would like to propose a modification to the Library Type note in Alma to improve workflow efficiency. We would like this note to appear in the Reading List Information panel or the panel where the 'view in Leganto' link can be found, rather than in the Notes tab. This should be editable directly from the panel to allow Library staff to add comments or further information related to a list (e.g. summary of communication with tutors, details on item availability, etc.). It would be like the "receiving note" field in POLs, but for reading lists.

This change would streamline processes by making key information more visible and accessible, which would facilitate handovers and tracking of known issues.

The February 2025 Alma release introduced sound alerts for user blocks. It would be helpful for staff at the front desk to have similar alerts for pop-up messages related to fulfillment notes (from the item).

wfischer@sjfc.edu 4. Mär 2025

Yes !!

I heard the same comment from our Librarians. We rarely use blocks but we constantly use fulfilment notes.

Having a sound alerts for fulfilment notes would be very helpful here.

When processing items from a cart, if they are scanned at "Return items" and the item is a "Ship physically" item, the new UI just brings up the item and in small letters says "Next Step - System" and the library it is to go to.

It also says "not on loan" (which in this case is not helpful, because there is an active request). The system "ships" the item, but Alma doesn't tell you that it did so and in order to print the shipping slip staff have to go back to the lending queue and find it.

We believe if Alma wants to help you and ship the item because there is a request, it should:

a) Indicate clearly that it shipped the item

b) Provide a quick way to print the shipping slip

c) Make that "Route to" next step message the primary/main pop-up so that the staff processing knows there is a request on it and routes it to the right place.

In the overdue and lost loan profile settings, there is an option to create a block for all the overdue notification types. However, no such option is available for the change to lost profile type. If you set a block for an overdue item, then as soon as the item changes to 'lost' as part of this cycle, the block is removed automatically by the system which seems counter-intuitive.

As part of our workflow we apply a block for the last overdue notification we send at 21 days, which is then removed 7 days later by the system when the item becomes lost. Staff have to monitor overdues and then manually re-add it which is time-consuming.

And as it is a manual block, if the item is returned or replaced staff then have to manually remove, whereas a block created by the change to lost profile would automatically be removed when the item is returned etc.

Having similar options to the overdue notifications would mean we could have different levels of block depending on how overdue an item is with the severest set when the item becomes lost. Blocks used in this way also have the advantage of including blocks on requesting depending your block definition settings, which the loan limit blocks can't currently do.

It would be useful to make change to discovery import profile via API. For example, to make change Harvest start date and End date and run the job in all supported way (e.g. reload and delete). Currently there are some OAI resources that do not support harvesting deleted records and we had to do "reload and delete" manually and regularly.

As an institution that is very enthusiastic about using the new Retention Information data fields for item records in Alma, we would like to request an enhancement that enables a user to assign multiple values to the Retention Reason field. For example, a single item could easily have all of the following statuses applied:

1. Institutional last copy

2. Faculty publication

3. Rare

4. Committed to some Shared Print program

5. Digitized material

Each of these retention reasons may correspond to different library staff workflow. For example, these retention reasons could support the following staff workflows, respectively:

1. Blocking withdrawal/weeding at the institutional (IZ) or consortial (NZ) level by collection development staff

2. Generate a report that can be used to populate a display shelf highlighting local research at our campus

3. Identification of materials that should be prioritized for preservation treatment

4. Block withdrawal/weeding and select for inclusion in data integration/sharing with partners

5. Identification of materials that are good candidates for off-site high density storage

Absent the ability to assign multiple values in a dropdown, which will provide a kind of authority control for approved statuses, we would be dependent on cramming all of this information into the free text Retention Note field. Obviously, this would be more error prone as it would require 100% consistency to achieve the same level of data reporting as the dropdown menu options would have. Additionally, parsing a free text field to find specific substrings in an Alma Analytics report is a much more sophisticated and therefore difficult task to accomplish. This would therefore have the effect of limiting the number of staff who are capable of effectively querying for all retention reasons.

There is a job to delete Fulltext objects from files, and there is a job to delete the files associated to representations (from a set of reps), but there is not a job to delete the digital files from a set of digital files. The Withdraw Digital representations removes ALL the files from a set of reps, but there may be cases where we want to delete only some/specific files from reps and not all of them.

You can release one record or all records from the MDE, but you can't release a selection of open records. It would be helpful if each record in the left pane had a check box to select and then release in batch.

Operators would benefit from not having to choose a Work Order Type and Status when the treatment is complete. It is not always easy to find out which cataloguing or repair operation has been carried out on an item. And above all, it's not useful if Done =“No” is selected.

Couldn't you put this last line at the beginning of the form, and open the Work Order Type and Status boxes only if "Yes" has been ticked, rather than the other way round?

Thank you and thank you for supporting this modest proposal.

Nicolas

Collections that are open access display in search results with the Open Access indicator. The indicator is populated by the presence of 506 0_ $f Unrestricted online access $2 star in the record, but there is not an option to search by Open Access using this info. It would be very helpful to index and be able to search by this field for collection management.

The new feature to match imports against a specific collection is really useful. However, the use with delete files is limited because related records in other collection prevent deletion.

The import profile matches against the specific collection and delete records are imported. Good.
The import profile has permissions to delete records and inventory. Good.
The import refuses to delete record with related records. Bad. I've already specified I only want to manipulate records in the specific collection, so Alma should have permission to delete the one in the collection in this circumstance.