This might argue for language in which the  question posed is whether the item was found during the claims search or not (answering yes checks in the item and waives any fines, prevents new fines from being created, etc. and if the answer is no then check in the item and charge the fines). 

One can’t simply check in a claim without capturing the reason the item is back. 

Best,
David 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 21, 2018, at 3:45 AM, Dr. Carsten Schwill <Carsten.Schwill@sub.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:


Hi RA SIG,

with regard to the Claims returned chart here a couple of thoughts:
  
  • Currently the flow chart does not take the existance of supsended fines into account directly.
  • Fines drive the underlying workflow.
  • How about adding this computable distinction to the workflow?

It could look like this:
  • Do suspended fines exist? NO => check in
  • Else, Yes =>  Shall fines be charged? Yes => check in
  • Else, NO => Permittet to waive fines? Yes => waive, check in
  • Else, NO => Route to Supervisor, abort.

What do you think?

Carsten

==
Dr. Carsten Schwill
Leiter Hauptabteilung Fachliche Leitstelle LBS Hamburg
Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky
Von-Melle-Park 3, 20146 Hamburg
Tel.: 040-42838-4363 | Fax: 040-428383352 | E-Mail: carsten.schwill@sub.uni-hamburg.de
www.sub.uni-hamburg.de | facebook.com/stabihh | twitter.com/stabihh

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=HlPdNmMDsk02fL31CnSAJArYoxM5Hzwp