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.

Similar to fulfillment requests, such as loans, digitization requests, or holds, we would like to anonymize purchase requests (ideally as part of the fulfillment job).

There should be options of whether to include approved and/or rejected over a specific age. We understand there might be an issue with purchase requests that take an extended period to complete, so this requires purchase requests to be set to a 'closed' or 'completed' status when physical items are received or electronic inventory is activated. Currently, those statuses do not exist.

From a patron privacy perspective, separating the patron record from the content they are requesting has a significant benefit, particularly for active patrons researching potentially controversial subject areas. Keeping this information in the LSP is potentially hazardous since there is no job to delete purchase requests en masse, either via job or API call.

At present, the “Transaction note” field in Alma Fund transactions is not available in Alma Analytics. This field is the only place where staff can record details and justifications for fund adjustments (e.g., internal transfers, allocations, corrections).

Because it is not exposed in Analytics, libraries cannot report, audit, or review these transaction notes through analytics dashboards or exported data.

We request that the “Transaction note” field be added to Alma Analytics so that it can be used for financial tracking, auditing, and internal reporting.

We would like to request the ability to customize the content displayed in the title section of the "Interested In" letter (label: Code – Title).

Currently, this section includes multiple bibliographic elements such as the title, author/creator, place of publication, publisher, publication date, and ISBN if available in the bibliographic record. While this level of detail may be useful in some contexts, it can make the letter appear cluttered and harder to read, particularly when fully cataloged records are imported into the system.

To improve clarity and readability for our clients, we would prefer to limit the title section to display only the title.

Attached is an example letter form our institution

Current Situation: In the History tab of a user record updated by the SIS feed, it is often unclear what specific changes have been made. The only visible change is the Status Date, even though the SIS feed indicates that a user record has been updated.

Proposed Enhancement: We request that the History tab in Alma be enhanced to display detailed information about all changes made to a user record by the SIS feed. This includes, but is not limited to, changes to user attributes, contact information, and other relevant fields. This enhancement will provide greater transparency and help library staff efficiently track and verify updates.

Justification:

• Improved Transparency: Clear visibility of all changes will help staff understand what has been updated, reducing confusion and potential errors.

• Efficiency: Staff will be able to quickly verify updates without needing to cross-reference multiple sources.

• Accountability: Detailed history logs will support better record-keeping and accountability for user data management.

Current Situation: After creating an itemized set in Alma, the only way to add records to the set is by searching within Alma and manually adding them. This process is inefficient, especially when dealing with large files containing numerous PrimaryIDs or MMS IDs.

Proposed Enhancement: We request the addition of functionality that allows users to upload a file of records (e.g., a CSV file containing PrimaryIDs) to an existing itemized set. This feature would streamline the process of updating itemized sets with large batches of records.

Justification:

• Efficiency: Uploading a file directly to an itemized set will save significant time and effort compared to manual searching and adding.

• Scalability: This enhancement will be particularly beneficial for handling large datasets, improving workflow for library staff.

• User Experience: Simplifying the process of updating itemized sets will enhance overall user satisfaction and productivity.

Current Situation: When updating user profiles in Alma, each role's expiration date must be updated individually. This process is time-consuming and inefficient, especially when multiple roles need the same expiration date.

Proposed Enhancement: We request the addition of functionality that allows users to select multiple roles within a user profile and update their expiration dates simultaneously. This bulk update feature would streamline the process and improve efficiency.

Justification:

• Efficiency: Updating multiple roles at once will save time and reduce repetitive tasks for library staff.

• Consistency: Ensuring all roles have the same expiration date will minimize errors and maintain uniformity across user profiles.

• User Experience: Simplifying the update process will enhance overall user satisfaction and productivity.

erin.nettifee@duke.edu 30. Jun 2025

Duke would also find this very helpful.

Current Situation: In Alma, when adding Statistical Categories to User Records, only the Description is displayed. This can be problematic as some Descriptions are identical, but their corresponding codes are different.

Proposed Enhancement: We request that both the code and the Description of Statistical Categories be displayed when adding categories manually and when viewing the User Record in the Statistics tab. This enhancement will provide clarity and prevent confusion.

Justification:

• Clarity: Displaying both the code and Description will help staff accurately identify and differentiate between Statistical Categories.

• Efficiency: Reducing confusion will streamline the process of adding and managing Statistical Categories.

• Accuracy: Ensuring that the correct categories are selected and applied will improve data integrity and record-keeping.

Current Situation: We are fully utilizing the User records' Statistical Categories in Alma, but there is no option to apply an expiration date to these categories. As users change between categories, it is important for statistical purposes to track when they were utilizing resources under a particular category. Currently, this process requires manual removal of categories, which is labor-intensive and impractical given our staffing constraints.

Proposed Enhancement: We request the addition of functionality that allows expiration dates to be set for Statistical Categories within User records. This feature would automate the process of updating categories, ensuring accurate and timely data for statistical analysis.

Justification:

• Efficiency: Automating the expiration of Statistical Categories will save significant time and reduce manual workload for staff.

• Accuracy: Ensuring that categories are updated accurately and promptly will improve the quality of statistical data.

• Resource Management: Better tracking of category usage over time will enhance our ability to manage and allocate resources effectively.

BIB record has BCE dates (starting with '-') in the 264 and 046 fields, 008 position 6 is 'b'. However, the facets on the left side show years without '-' symbol, so it appears as CE dates in All Titles search results.

Why:

The publication year facet generated from field 264 includes the first 4 digits only (representing a year) and does not support special characters (such as -).

Hereby the request to enable the correct display of the BCE dates (from 264 $$c or 046).

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 often have a set of portfolios that we know need the access type (either perpetual or current) updated, but right now there's no way to do a batch change on a set of portfolios. It would be very helpful to have the option to change that setting via a job.

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.

Request:

Currently, a request confirmation letter is automatically emailed to patrons when they submit an interlibrary loan request. I would like to see the same—or a similar—confirmation letter generated and sent for internal book requests from our own shelves.

Providing this confirmation would:

• Acknowledge receipt of the patron’s internal request,

• Help manage patron expectations,

• And maintain consistency in communication across different types of requests.

This enhancement would improve the user experience and reduce the volume of follow-up inquiries.

Currently for a general electronic service we can only create conditions based on metadata already contained in the given BIB record. Please provide a way to let the link resolver check any condition which is computable within a reasonable short amount of time!

Example Use Case:
Our library network offers a web service taking any given ISBN, ISSN or Union Catalog ID and returning 'true' if there is a BIB record for the corresponding resource in the union catalog and at least one of the network's libraries has an item of this resource available for ILL. Otherwise the web service returns 'false'. If we were able to let the Alma link resolver check a given ISBN, ISSN or Union Catalog ID against that web service we could offer an ILL service if and only if there is a pretty good chance that there is an item available via ILL.

Instead the only general electronic service we can offer currently is a context-insensitive "check whether ILL might be an option" link which resolves to our library network's SFX service menu(!) where an ILL service shows up if and only if there is a pretty good chance that there is an item available via ILL. (Yes, SFX is able to perform such "magic" thanks to so called "plugin thresholds". Their implementation in SFX as an arbitrary local script that evaluates the desired condition does not fit into a cloud environment, of course, but letting a web service evaluate the desired condition and return 'true' or 'false' does.)

Please note that this enhancment request has also been submitted as an idea on Idea Exchange: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/49908636-allow-for-almost-arbitrary-conditions-in-general-e

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.

Current Situation: When using the APIs to update user records in Alma, the entire User record must be extracted, even if only a small portion needs updating. This process is inefficient and results in the History tab indicating that the entire User record was updated, rather than just the specific field.

Proposed Enhancement: We request the ability to update User records via the API without needing to extract the entire record. Additionally, the History tab should accurately reflect which specific fields were updated, rather than indicating a full record update.

Justification:

• Efficiency: Updating only the necessary fields will save time and reduce the complexity of the process.

• Accuracy: Recording specific field updates in the History tab will provide clearer and more accurate tracking of changes.

• Resource Management: Streamlining the update process will improve overall system performance and resource utilization.

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.

Something that could be a useful bit of functionality for set management-- allow a user to favorite sets so that those particular sets are floated to the top of the list when choosing the "manage sets" function. This would make collaboration between Alma users easier, as you would not have to page through multiple pages of public sets to work on a long-term project.

The Duplicate Title Analysis output often marks things as duplicates in error b/c only the identifiers are used. There are many instances where identifiers are noted on versions of a record/item. Please incorporate/consider the edition and/or publication year, especially when running Detect duplication based on: ISBN.

We were working on our Work Order types and departments to get a better overview of items under repair and others in libraries. I can't figure out how the WO types are sorted in the fulfillment desks, they seem to be randomly placed when I add them!

The issue is about the sorting of work orders types in a circulation desk. I made video captures I can share if you like. As you can see on it I added 3 work orders type to a circ desk and I can't understand their sort in the circ desk parameters.
And I try another time, the sort will be different (start of the 2nd video).
And finally the Circ desk's Work orders types' sort will be the same for the librarians in the scan in menu : 2nd video.

The product Manager answered me, it's a bug and the Alma Tier2 Support Team said me "There is no Work Order Types sorting option. This was reported as a bug, but there are no plans of adding a sorting option for Work Order Types at the moment."

Current Situation: Staff often encounter "System" changes in physical item histories, making it difficult to track the history of problematic items (e.g., incomplete or missing items). This lack of specific information hinders the ability to follow up with the responsible staff member.

Proposed Enhancement: We request that item histories in Alma include the Primary ID of the staff member who initiated any job that changes the location or bibliographic record of an item. This enhancement will provide greater clarity and accountability.

Justification:

• Improved Tracking: Including staff Primary IDs will help library staff accurately track changes and address issues with problematic items.

• Accountability: Staff will be able to follow up with the responsible individual, improving accountability and resolution of issues.

• Efficiency: Enhanced item histories will streamline the process of identifying and resolving problems, saving time and effort for library staff.

Current Situation: The current system for print periodical receiving in Alma involves predictions for each individual issue. This process is time-consuming and prone to errors, especially when dealing with delayed publications or changes in publication patterns.

Proposed Enhancement: We request a simplified system for print periodical receiving that uses modified Holdings rather than predictions. This enhancement would consolidate print periodical receiving into one area, reducing the number of steps in the process and making training easier. It would also allow students to take responsibility for some receiving tasks.

Issues Addressed:

• Efficiency: Predictions for each issue require individual updates if the publication is delayed, which is time-consuming.

• Complexity: Publications like newspapers can have hundreds of predictions, requiring navigation through multiple screens.

• Claims: Delayed publications result in unnecessary claims.

• Pattern Changes: Changes in publication patterns necessitate the removal of existing patterns and unreceived predictions, followed by the creation of new patterns.

Justification:

• Time Savings: A simplified system will make receiving faster and more efficient, saving time and reducing costly errors.

• Training: Easier training will enable students to assist with receiving tasks, improving workflow.

• Accuracy: Consolidating the process will reduce errors and improve the accuracy of received items.