[Bug 38879] New: Vendors only used for ERM should not be visible for print acquisitions
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38879 Bug ID: 38879 Summary: Vendors only used for ERM should not be visible for print acquisitions Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: Main Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Acquisitions Assignee: koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org Reporter: mathsabypro@gmail.com QA Contact: testopia@bugs.koha-community.org A vendor used for ERM should not be visible for print acquisitions, or print serials subscription. We need a field in vendor records to manage that visibility -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38879 --- Comment #1 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> --- There is a field for vendor type now that could be used along these lines. But is it really that they are always different? Or are you looking for a way to limit the list shown in ERM? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38879 --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Saby <mathsabypro@gmail.com> --- I mean, if I have 3 vendors - BooksellerA, selling print books only - BooksellerB, selling print and electronic books - Elsevier, selling electronic databases in ERM I should see only BooksellerB and Elsevier in print acquisition workflow I should see only BooksellerA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38879 --- Comment #3 from Mathieu Saby <mathsabypro@gmail.com> --- More or less same idea here : https://tree.taiga.io/project/joubu-koha-erm/us/188?kanban-status=2674133 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38879 Michaela Sieber <michaela.sieber@kit.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michaela.sieber@kit.edu --- Comment #4 from Michaela Sieber <michaela.sieber@kit.edu> --- (In reply to Mathieu Saby from comment #2)
I mean, if I have 3 vendors - BooksellerA, selling print books only - BooksellerB, selling print and electronic books - Elsevier, selling electronic databases
in ERM I should see only BooksellerB and Elsevier in print acquisition workflow I should see only BooksellerA
Hi Mathieu, the acquisition module is for print and electronic and we have a lot of vendors that sell prined and electronic materials. We do acquisition of all materials in koha's acquisition module, including e-journals, databases and e-book packages. So there is no explicit print acquisition workflow in koha. I think since we can use select2 for drop-down lists it is not that hard to select the correct vendor any more. Maybe a flag (e.g. a checkbox) in the vendor record could be interesting to mark a vendor as relevant for the ERM module -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38879 --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Saby <mathsabypro@gmail.com> --- Well, the process you describe isn't exactly optimal. I don't want my colleagues in charge of printed book acquisitions to have to choose from 20 suppliers if we only have 2 printed book suppliers. Having a "print workflow" and "electronic workflow" could be useful. For example with no need of "reception" step for electronic workflow. Shouldn't all this be discussed as part of the module redesign? And yes at least a checkbox should be useful for e-ressource. 2 checkbox at least in fact, to distinguish the supplier who produces the ressource (ex : Springer), but to whom we do not send invoices, and the one to whom you are actually paying for this ressource (ex : a library consortium, a subscription agency like Ebsco...) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38879 --- Comment #6 from Mathieu Saby <mathsabypro@gmail.com> --- After that we could create a permission to allow staff to use such or such provider, depending of their role in the library -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38879 --- Comment #7 from Michaela Sieber <michaela.sieber@kit.edu> --- (In reply to Mathieu Saby from comment #5)
Having a "print workflow" and "electronic workflow" could be useful. For example with no need of "reception" step for electronic workflow. Shouldn't all this be discussed as part of the module redesign?
All this was discussed in the acq task force for the module redesign and there is not the one workflow for printed/electronic materials. Different libraries have different workflows. Especially the question of creating items/inventory is handled differently. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.
participants (1)
-
bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org