Please add questions and topics here. Topics or questions posted in slack will be added here as well.
ERM implementation topics, questions or issues
|#||Topic||Description/ use case||Date added|
Has been discussed in meeting:
Link to agenda/ minutes
|Actions / JIRA ticket|
|1||Auto-generate Agreements via import|
As an electronic resource librarian with a lot of agreements, I like to set up at least the initial agreement details AND attach resources to it.
|2020-12-03||Khalilah Gambrell||2/12 Meeting minutes|
|2||ERM apps ' ref data updates/additions||How best to manage/be notified of updates/additions.||2020-01-14||Khalilah Gambrell||2/12 Meeting minutes|
|3||What data will be migrated to FOLIO||How far back go people with their agreements in FOLIO||2020-01-29||MS based on a comment by Sara Colglazier in the ERM implementers meeting|
|4||eholdings + Agreements integration||What Agreement features/functionality is not readily available to a customer using the eholdings app?||2020-02-07||Khalilah Gambrell||2/26 Meeting minutes|
|5||Tags/descriptive data at e-resource level||Ability to attach fine-grained information to any given agreement line / e-resource line to answer questions like: core title vs. non-core title, add statistical codes or subject codes. Collection of use cases.||2020-02-11||Felix Hemme, ZBW|
Benjamin Ahlborn SuUB
|6||Multi-value pick-lists in license terms||Ability to record multiple values for pick-list license terms, e.g.: Authorized user groups: staff, students, walk-ins.|
This is go-live relevant for Leipzig.
Annika Schröer, UB Leipzig
|7||Alternate Names/Titles for Agreements|
Ability to assign multiple names to an agreement record AND search on those names. (Example: Directory of Open Access Journals agreement should also have a field to record "DOAJ" as a searchable title.) We see this as being similar to what has already been done in Organizations.
Edit Annika: Being able to search for alternate agreement names seems crucial to us, especially since there is no standard/normalized way of naming agreements. In our experience with our old system, there are alternative names for the majority of agreements and many of the colleagues use different forms actively.
Jack Mulvaney (UMass + Five Colleges)
+1 Annika Schröer, UB Leipzig
+1 Felix Hemme, ZBW
|8||Agreement Lines – expanding information contained in/displayed and able to be recorded under||When an Agreement is not specific to one title or package but is of a (suggested) organizing type for any number of titles/resources each with their own Agreement Lines/POLs etc. then for each the information displayed/provided is currently rather limited. For example, there is no way currently to record Notes at the Agreement Line level, or, to indicate Concurrent User # or Unlimited User information, etc. The inability to record information like this at the Agreement Line level could force us to have to create more Agreements overall to be able to manage resources licensed or purchased at the title or mini-bundle level.||2020-02-18||Sara Colglazier. MHC/Five Colleges||work in progress|
|9||What additional eholdings + Agreement app integration capabilities do you expect?||2020-02-26||Khalilah Gambrell||work in progress|
|10||Additional Relationship types needed to optimally make use of the Related Agreements section||In Agreements in the Related Agreements section more different types need to be added and then offered in the dropdown for "Linked agreement's relationship to the agreement being edited". The functionality (automatic bi-way linking) is super cool! but so far the relationship type options are too limited. In the example test-type agreements I talked about in the RM SIG on 2020-02-28, I would have liked to have been able to select 'backfile to'/'backfile of' or 'AAF to'/'Buy In Purchase of' or some such wording etc. I am sure there are other needed relationship types ...||2020-02-28||Sara Colglazier. MHC/Five Colleges||5/6 Meeting minutes|
|11||Make agreement lines independent from connected resources||At the moment, agreement lines can only be created by linking a resource from either eHoldings or the internal KB. It would be very useful for several use cases to be able to create an agreement line without a connected e-resource. |
a. the person creating the agreement and linking the POL is not the one responsible for the content (different team, ...), b. the resource cannot be found at the moment and will be linked later on, c. link costs like service charges to the agreement, d. eHoldings users can then create the agreement and link POLs in one step without having to switch apps twice in the process...
|2020-03-04||Annika Schröer, UB Leipzig|
|12||Ability to search Agreements by POL number||Ability to search by POL number is key need of libraries that purchase through vendors like EBSCO Subscription Service, Harrasowitz, etc.||2020-05-18||Sara Colglazier, Lindsey Lowery, Alice Daugherty||03/17/2021 meeting minutes|
|13||Display of number of set terms (licenses) or supplementary properities (agreements)||Currently the number of set terms/properties does not display in the license/agreement view pane accordions. It would be desirable for users to see how properties are set||2020-06-03||ERM Subgroup||2021-03-24 - ERM Subgroup meeting minutes|
|14||Sort ref values in pick lists in logical order|
As is, ref values in pick lists are sorted randomly. As a result, the user has to search for the values in different positions each time, instead of being able to remember where they are. Example:
Order: a, c, b, e, d
Order: b, c, d, a, e
|2020-06-04||Felix, ZBW||7/1 Meeting minutes|
|15||Add table to Notes helper app / notes details|
I should have mentioned this in our meeting yesterday, but forgot it. It would be helpful if one could also create tables in the "Details" section of the Notes app to store information like:
This is a screenshot from our internal Wiki. The information is suitable to be maintained in the ERM system. It's about the creation of analytic records in our catalogue.
|16||Sort "cards" in Agreements and Licenses app in logical or alphabetical order|
Cards are sorted differently earch time a user visits a page in both apps.
Order: j, e, k, e
Order: e, k, j, e
|2020-06-17||Felix, ZBW||7/8 Meeting minutes|
|17||License Permissions: Restrict Downloads||Ability to allow some users to search/view license records without having the ability to download documents. Needed as a reasonable effort to protect confidentiality around pricing information which is included in the full text license documents.||2020-06-18||Virginia Martin and Julie Brannon, Duke||7/15 meeting minutes|
|18||Licenses: Filter by Organization Role|
Ability to filter Licenses by Organization Role.
At Duke, we've created some licenses linked to organizations where role = Consortium. We'd like to be able to filter on Organization Role = Consortium, but we first have to filter by a specific Organization and then filter by role within that set of results. Is there another way we could see a list of all licenses that are linked to any organization with a role = Consortium?
|2020-07-15||Virginia Martin and Julie Brannon, Duke||7/29 meeting minutes|
|19||Licenses: Filter by Independent/Professional School Library|
This topic was touched on during the 2020.07.29 ERM Subgroup meeting . It seems that several institutions share the need to distinguish license records based on internal libraries such as main library, medical school library, law library, business school library since each of those entities may manage independent license agreements.
At Duke, we decided to use the License Type for this, so we used Settings to create a value to represent each library.
An alternative approach would have been to create an organization record for each of our libraries and assign them to the license with a role = 'Licensee', but we wanted the easier filtering offered by License Type (if we use Organization we have to click the Org filter box to find "Law Library"), we preferred not to create an Organization to represent our libraries, and didn't see a clear need for the "License Type" field.
Owen asked during the 2020.07.29 meeting about the possibility of referencing 'Location' as setup in Settings/Tenant/Location; however, that wouldn't be helpful in Duke's case and could be problematic for other institutions as well depending on how they plan to structure loan rules.
The Settings/Tenant/Location setup at Duke will likely have a hierarchy like this (not final yet, though) which was designed for loan rules:
Institution = 'Duke'
Campus = 'Professional School'
Library = 'Ford', 'Medical', 'Law', 'Divinity'
Another branch of the tree would represent our main library (DUL) which has several sublibraries, but they don't manage independent license agreements
Institution = 'Duke'
Campus = 'DUL'
Library = 'LSC', 'BES', 'Perkins', 'Music', 'Marine', 'Lilly', 'Rubenstein', and so on.
So, if this structure were hooked into Licenses/agreements we couldn't just point to the Campus (since we'd only be able to differentiate between 'DUL' and "Professional School" ) and we couldn't use Library since it breaks out 20 different values for DUL.
How are other institutions thinking about handling this use case? Thanks!
|2020-08-04||Virginia Martin and Julie Brannon, Duke||9/2 meeting minutes|
|20||Duplicate Amendment||Duplicate license feature was added in Goldenrod and as we tested it we realized it would be very helpful to have a way to duplicate an amendment within an existing License (rather than duplicating the entire license record). This might be a more common use case for us at Duke - adding a new amendment year after year to the same license.|
|Virginia Martin and Julie Brannon, Duke|
|21||Tracking/Logging Changes||How to handle tracking/logging of change in Agreements (generally & from eHoldings or other Apps etc) that will also comply with EU law||28 Aug 2020||Sara Colglazier (off of RM SIG meeting, with Laura Wright as guest)||9/2 meeting minutes|
|22||Build License Relationships||Ability to build relationships among license records would be helpful. For example, to be able to point to a past license that is superceeded by a new one. We're thinking through our workflows for managing licenses over time and find that we're using the status field to indicate that the original license is expired and notes to explain which license to look to for current coverage and it would help to be able to point directly to the record (and vice versa)||Virginia Martin and Julie Brannon, Duke||9/30/2020 meeting minutes|
|Ability to select all license records with one click for export|
As a Licenses user I narrowed down my result set and now I want to select all matching license records for export. This could be achived by having a checkbox at the top of the list that selects all rows.
|Felix, ZBW||9/30/2020 meeting minutes|
|24||Allow Multiple Vendors per agreement||Similar to Duke's circumstances where there might be more than 1 licensor for a license, we have found a need for multiple vendors. PCA agreements might include content purchases from a vendor direct alongside a subscription agent. A general agreement for Wiley eBooks might have a vendor of GOBI/YBP as well as Wiley. (We recognize that this has implications on the vendor UI feature at the top of the agreement.||2020-09-30||Jack M. (UMass / Five Colleges)|
|25||More robust options for Supplemental Properties in Agreements–INCLUDING the same Sup Prop being added more than once||The supplemental properties fields could be expanded to include multi-value pick lists (when ready), editor functions similar to the Notes Helper app (specifically hyperlinking) and the ability to use the same property multiple times (potentially a config. option in settings.) In addition it could be expanded so that multiple values with associated notes could be added (with similar functionality to the add alternative name feature) to capture information like a Platform Name and Resource URL in a single supp. prop. ... Also it is also needed that the same Sup Prop be able to be added more than once. For example, if I have an Agreement with more than one AGL and I want to record that they each have a certain Sup Prop for which the value is different (and the notes with it) then currently I cannot do so.||2020-09-30||Jack M. (UMass / Five Colleges)|
Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C)
|26||Date stamps||We would be interested in seeing automatic date stamps added to the username and password fields and/or the notes field within the interface add-on (that's a part of ERM Organizations). I believe this notes field is separate from the notes add-on that appears in eHoldings and Agreements. Because the interfaces include log-in information that frequently changes, it would be useful if we could know the last time someone used that particular interface and log-in credentials to access a site.||2020-10-01||Emma R. (Cornell)|
We're using notes tentatively on Licenses in our Production instance and find them to be slightly confusing. We would find it helpful to see an overview of Notes to confirm our understanding of notes behavior to ensure that we're using them optimally and perhaps other institutions could share examples of how they are using notes?
This is our understanding of notes characteristics - are these descriptions correct and is there documentation of this anywhere?
|2020-10-14||Julie Brannon, Virginia Martin (Duke)||10/28/2020 meeting minutes|
|28||Automatic loading of results in e-resource search pane|
When a user is in the Agreements app and navigates to the tab "E-resources" the first 100 e-resources are loaded and displayed.
When you navigate to the e-resources tab it will take a few seconds until the first records have been fetched. Until then, the text "... Loading" is displayed and could potentially distract the user. I have received feedback from users that they always scan the results first. But of course the list offers no added value in most cases, because the records are displayed sorted by title 0-9, A-Z.
I would suggest to not display any results until the user has performed a search or filter operation.
They will display the text "Choose a filter or enter a search query to show results."
(paraphrased from https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1603355512014400)
|2020-10-22||Felix, ZBW||12/09/2020 meeting minutes|
|29||Should it be possible to have multiple AGLs for the same resource (title/package|platform combo entity linked from eHoldings) in the same/single Agreement|
After discovering that inadvertently an extra AGL had been added to an Agreement from eHoldings causing an unwanted dupe entry in the Agreement–but which is NOT obvious or in any way noticeable once it has been done from eHoldings and very difficult to detect in the Agreement since the entries do not show following each other and the Agreement has many many lines (+100)–I wondered whether this should even be possible (slack posting: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1603474359024000)
In response, Owen countered that one may want multiple AGLs for the same title entity when needing to link them to separate POLs over time (since AGLs may be date limited); but also suggested thinking about:
(see Owen's initial and following responses to Sara's slack query: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1603710981024800?thread_ts=1603474359.024000&cid=C9ER2HCRY)
Question for discussion: to be able to dupe add or not? And if, to be able, then how to address making it obvious
|2020-10-26||Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C)||02/03/2020 meeting minutes|
|30||Add filtering by Tags to Agreements / E-resources|
Currently it is possible to filter agreement records by tags:
For some workflows at ZBW it would be useful to also filter e-resources by tags. Is it possible to introduce the tag filter also in the e-resource screen?
|31||Current agreement period data|
When looking at a Folio agreement in detail view some data is displayed at the top of the record (period start, period end). Below the agreement name heading the cancellation deadline and agreement period note is displayed. This is data from the agreement period(s). When the end date of an agreement period is in the past (has expired) AND there is no subsequent agreement period, the start and end dates will still display at the top of the record. The cancellation deadline and the agreement period note will only display in the "other periods" accordion.
What do other folks thing about this behaviour? I think that the period note can contain important information that the staff needs to see at a glance even if its end date is in the past and there is no subsequent period. Therefore I propose to display the period note of the last period if there is no subsequent period. By a comment of Owen, however, I was made aware that this could lead to inconsistencies
If there is a subsequent agreement period the period start date from the first period and the period end date from the latest agreement period will display. In addition, the cancellation deadline and the agreement period note from the current period are displayed below the agreement name. I think that is absolutely fine and should not be changed.
there is an expired, a current and a future period
Periods in edit mode:
Data in agreement "head":
Accordion "Other periods"
there is a only an expired and no current or future period
Periods in edit mode:
Data in agreement "head":
Accordion "Other periods"
|2020-11-12||Felix Hemme, ZBW||12/09/2020 meeting minutes|
|32||Agreement: Organization Role Values||The values for SubscriptionAgreementOrg.role aren't configurable by tenant, so we'd like to request that the community consider adding the value"Consortium", or perhaps make this list configurable.||2020-11-24||Virginia Martin and Julie Brannon, Duke||01/13/2021 meeting notes|
|33||E-resources: Change the display behavior when a title is no longer available in a package|
When a PCI has an accessEnd date that is in the past it is still displayed in the "Option for acquiring" view from the titleInstance. We'd like to propose to change this: If a PCI has an accessEnd date that is in the past it should not be listed in the "Option for acquiring" MCL (1) OR it should be indicated that this title has left the package / the access period has ended.
(1) I know that this makes it difficult to access the PCI in the UI. However, the display in the MCL leads to the assumption that the title is included in this package, although access is no longer possible.
Example from gokb.org:
|2020-12-01||Felix Hemme, ZBW||04/14/2021 meeting minutes|
|34||Licenses: How to manage amendments signed by a library other than the signatory of the original license|
We are interested to hear how other institutions are managing this situation:
A license covers all libraries at an institution and is signed by library A (the main library). Later, an amendment to that license is signed by library B (such as a medical center library or law library). We're not sure how to represent that in FOLIO in a way that is searchable by library since the differentiation is at the amendment level and there aren't data elements on the amendment that we can use to make a library distinction.
Virginia Martin and Julie Brannon, Duke
|1/27/2021 meeting minutes|
|35||Agreements: Search needs to be refine-able (i.e., have a drop down menu like in other Apps for other more narrow, defined, specific fields)||With the addition of the Description field in what is searched by Search, it has become even clearer that certain targeted searching (not filtering) needs to be available like in other Apps. For example, see #12 above: be able to search on POL (granted this may be more difficult because the POL is part of the AGL), but otherwise, for example: just Name left-anchored/starts with, just Name keyword, just Name and Alternative Names keyword.||2021-01-14||Sara Colglazier (MHC), Jack M. (UMass), Jenna Lanterman (Smith), Paul T. (Amherst), Jen B. (Hampshire)||2/24/2021 meeting minutes|
|36||Agreements: Add new value to "Is perptual" reference list||Sometimes there is a mix between perpetual and non-perpetual access for resources that are part of an agreement. In these cases we'll leave the field blank and capture the mix in a license term note. We'd like to propose a new third value in addition to "yes" / "no": "mix". This would capture the conditions more accurate.||2021-01-15||Julie Brannon (Duke), Felix Hemme (ZBW)||02/17/2021 meeting minutes|
|37||Agreements/Licenses: How to manage streaming videos with licenses that expire 1 to 3 years after purchase||Not sure if this a licensing or Agreements question. We purchase streaming videos on request (e.g., Kanopy, Alexander Street) that come with 1 to 3 year licenses. We are currently tracking with when the license to access ends within a 9XX field in FOLIO. This mechanism is not ideal for FOLIO. We are interested in exploring how to track expiring access using Agreements/Licenses as an option to track when these expire. The PO could be another option.||2021-01-20||Kristin Martin and Jessica Harris (Chicago)|
discussion starts: 02/03/2021 meeting minutes
|38||Agreements/Licenses: Allow sort options for documents||A library is using core/supplementary docs to attach invoices (they are not using any acq FOLIO functionality), licenses, and other docs related to licenses agreements. They asked if there are sort options around these documents. Presently, they seem to display in the order in which they were attached. But it would be desirable if there were sort options (e.g. alphabetical, date added, document category). Can we revisit ERM-214?||2021-03-09||Molly Driscoll (EBSCO) on behalf of Chapman University||04/14/2021 meeting minutes|
|39||Agreements: provide Filter for Supplementary Documents||It would very useful to be able to find via Filter those Agreements for which I have intentionally added Supplementary Documents (or, have not). Preferably based on the Categories set–as well as None (no Supp Docs).||2021-03-24||Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C)||04/14/2021 meeting minutes|
|40||License term settings screen re-design|
Settings for Licenses - License terms
License terms: Looking at the list of terms in the right pane
It would be helpful to have the ability to search for terms (in addition to the browser search)
See possible option in Settings - Data Import - Profiles as an example
2021-10-06: OS Create stories for moving New button to top bar across various Settings screens for Licenses , Agreements, Local KB Admin
|41||Duplicate Licenses including connected Amendments|
Ability to duplicate licenses including their connected amendments
Use case: a library creates a license record for the general license contract and adds amendments for the resource-specific appendixes. If a few years later there is a new general license with resource-specific amendments, the library wants to be able to duplicate all existing records
|2021-10-06: discussed and agreed no action for now as not high priority across the community|
|42||License Term status||It could be helpful to have a License term status in the Settings for Licenses → License terms|
For several years a library uses one license term for several licenses.
At some point, this license term will no longer be used, and the library does not want to display it on new license records.
Still, it should stay in the historical and existing licenses.
|2021-10-06: OS to include requirement for "Inactive" terms as part of wider set of improvements for terms (esp. multi-value terms)|
|43||Agreement Lines: Count column for titles versus packages|
When titles from the EKB are attached as Agreement Lines their count in the AGL Accordions Multi Column List is always displayed as "1" regardless of selection status. This is the opposite of when a package is connected as an AGL - the count displays as however many titles are selected out of all possible titles in the package.
This has led to some confusion over whether or not EKB titles attached as AGLs are selected or not when looking at the Agreements Accordion. The only way to tell is to click into each title AGL and view the placard of eHoldings data. It would be helpful for titles and packages to display their count in the same/or similar ways.
2021-10-06: OS to write story for displaying 0/1 or 1/1 for individual titles from eHoldings depending on selection status
|44||Internal KB: Enhance package metadata schema|
Currently, only very rudimentary metadata is available in Folio package:
Discussion: data from GOKb package needed in Folio package:
2021-10-20: OS to collect package metadata fields from across common KBs and propose list for store/display in Folio Agreements
HLM ID - use cases for both displaying in the agreement (line?) but also for search as if you are told "Package ID: 8234 has been deleted" then finding the correct agreement is useful - current work around is to store as an alternative title
Review package metadata from:
|45||Improvements to display of resources that are subscribed through an agreement|
Given: An active agreement with an agreement line for the package "JSTOR Arts & Sciences I : hbz : 2017-10-09"
If the e-resource is not linked directly as agreement line, but rather the package that contains the e-resource, the information displayed could be enhanced or the link back to the agreement could be made more seamlessly. Some questions that our staff wants to answer are:
Given: An active agreement with an agreement line for the package "Sage: E-Journals"
There is no way to tell from this page that this journal is no longer accessible via the agreement. It has the active end date "2020-12-31". The user has to open the agreement, switch to the tab with dropped resources and perform a search with the browsers search tools (CTRL + F) for the name of the journal.
|2021-10-27: OS Action:|
|46||ERM comparisons: Make Comparison points hyperlinks||In ERM comparisons, the user can select packages or agreements and compare them against each other. It would be convinient if the entries in the accordion "Comparison points" would be links back to the records in the Agreements app.|
|2021-10-27: OS Action: write story to implement hyperlink|
|47||Agreements/agreement lines: Adjust placement of 'Add PO line' button on agreements edit screen||Enhancement proposed by Michigan State University: They have created an agreement for each of their eBook packages (e.g. EBSCO purchased eBooks, ProQuest purchased eBooks, etc.). Each agreement has a single agreement line, representing the package. However, they are linking multiple POL to the single agreement line to represent the orders for each of the titles. The 'Add PO line' button appears at the bottom of the attached POLs, so, each time they go to add a new POL, they need to scroll all the way to the bottom to click the button. This becomes quite arduous in cases where they have dozens (or more) POL attached to the agreement line.They asked if the 'Add POL' button could be moved to the top of the POL section on the agreement line so that they could add multiple POL without the need to scroll to the bottom each time.|
2021-10-20: OS/GO investigate if we can add the "Add PO Line" button into the PO Line accordion header on the Agreement Line screen
OS restart work to look at how we handle multiple POLs within a single package scenario - particularly eBooks and Streaming videos. Maybe not even package, but individual items (streaming video) - and depending on the agreement then possibly not separate POLs?
|48||ERM comparisons: Freeze table heading|
Lists in ERM comparisons can become quite long, depending on the types of records that got compared. When scrolling, the user can easily lose track of the meaning of the individual columns. This could be fixed by freezing the column header like you can do e.g. in Excel.
2021-10-27 OS: Action write story for this
|49||ERM comparisons: Sort by||Make it possible to sort by column "Overlap". This would enable the users to see at one glance all titles with overlapp, non-overlapp, partial overlap.|
|Felix Hemme||2021-10-27 OS: Investigate what is possible and report back to group with options|
|50||Review tables across ERM to have frozen headings on MCLs||e.g. Agreement Lines - if you scroll you lose the headings on the MCL|
|2021-10-27 OS: Review MCLs across apps with Gill and write up stories|
MS: To raise at cross-app SIG
|51||CSV export in Agreements||Like the CSV export in Licenses it would be nice to have a CSV export in Agreements as well.|
|Martina Tumulla||11/10/2021 meeting minutes|
“Replacing” linked resource forming an AGL (eHoldings Perspective)
I link the package “Banking Information Database” from ProQuest as an agreement line and add an AGL note, notes-helper app notes, and link a POL. ProQuest repackages the resource to become the “Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection.” EBSCO creates a new package under that name in HLM, and deletes the BID package because the content provider says it is no longer a resource they sell – therefore the data from my linked resource for my AGL disappears and I need to create a new AGL and move all the data over to that AGL.
It would be nice to be able to simply replace the title/package being linked from eHoldings to form the AGL similar to how you can replace the linked organization without having the edit roles or notes. When the KB management team deletes information it is not always communicated ahead of time – but if I knew that BID was being deleted tomorrow I would replace it with the AT&C package and move on – it isn’t a “new” resource, nothing changes with our POL, licenses, or ordering method, and we retain no perpetual access to the old version of the resource. I would expect that it does not overwrite the note I left on the AGL or remove the POL or notes-helper app notes, it’s just a swap out for a new asset from eHoldings.
|Jack Mulvaney||12/15/2021 meeting minutes|