For years, Koha has used guarantors to link families together. Progress was made when we were able to link more than one person to a child. However, there are other areas where it might be beneficial to link patrons together that don't involve parents. https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=31329 proposes to block linked accounts when one is restricted. But before we do that, I think it might be worth looking at the guarantors a little bit and refine our approach with this functionality before proceeding with 31329 (sorry Wally!). I think guarantors should be updated to something more universal, linking any patron to any patron. Right now we limit it to linking a parent or guardian to a child. But what if we wanted to link a household. That might just be siblings in the same house. What if it was husband and wife? What if it was an organization? There are some great ideas with linked accounts, like what 31329 proposes. And I am sure that there are others. For example, maybe your library has some resources that you want to limit 1 per household. Right now we can't do that, but perhaps we could with a re-imagined linking system. What if we wanted to update information in the linked accounts? This would be a good start. What does this re-imagined linking look like? Perhaps: * Eliminate the limitation allowing the links to just child accounts. * Name the organizational grouping: Household, School name, business name, etc. * Identify and an all guarantors in the grouping. * Can the grouping exist without a guarantor? * If not, if the last guarantor is removed from the group, should someone else in the grouping be marked as guarantor, should the grouping be allowed to carry on without a guarantor, or should the grouping be dissolved? There may be other aspects we might want to consider in this functionality, but this is a good start. Once this is reworked, then we could look at options of linking blocks to particular groups, updating groups, circulation limitations to groups, etc.
Christopher makes valid points. From our (legal, privacy) perspective, we accept that adults cannot have access to other adults' accounts without the account's owner allowing access him/herself; i.e., giving the spouse their login credentials. Divorce and other family drama not where we want to be involved. Further, juveniles are not allowed memberships without an adult guarantor who assumes legal responsibility for that juvenile's library account until that juvenile reaches the age of majority. In our library, guarantors are only flagged when one or more guarantee's account has fines (which for us doesn't occur until the item becomes "lost" (i.e. 21 days) or damaged resulting in a replacement fine. A Guarantor's account is not alerted or flagged due to any other restrictive state of a guarantee's account (i.e., "normal" overdues). However, it would be great to have other "household" (to include other adults) included in a "hey, something is amiss with an account in your household" notice and/or restriction. I understand the baby-steps approach. Our focus in on loss prevention as it relates to the adult who is held legally responsible for their guarantees (who are minors...we do not allow guarantees to be 18+). We have considered completely revamping our membership to only adult accounts and assigning patron categories in item-limit increments. But older guarantees feel empowered to have their own card, and short of us investing in a card generator/printer so that multiple people in the family can have their "own" card (but same card number), this really isn't feasible, nor does it offer the most accurate statistics regarding membership and individual patron usage. If Christopher's approach is the most viable way to eventually provide true (and customizable) "links," I support this bug. That said, though, our desire for true links is to help us enhance our loss prevention efforts and better monitor and inhibit patrons who abuse the system with multiple children's accounts to get around the rules by manipulating the system. Therefore, I am happy with any forward movement in this realm as long as the goal is to make the "guarantor/guarantees" (plural guarantees) all "function" like one "account" [household/organization] with individual "sub-accounts" [guarantor/guarantees].
Your comment made me think of another great use for linking non-children. Spouses often pick items for each other. We usually have to make a note in the account of the spouse that is allowed to do so, and we usually require they have the card number at least. Maybe down the road we could specify on each account who in the group is authorized to pick up items for this person, and who is allowed to know details in the account. Perhaps if you are given that permission, when you scan your card, there is another button/link in your account that says "Picking up for..." and giving you a choice to switch to any account you are authorized for.
Our library migrated from Evergreen which allowed the linking of accounts into a group. The Koha method of linking accounts by guarantor has taken a little bit of getting use to, and has required a workaround of the system to get the functionality we wanted. Currently, our library links multiple adults together by assigning one account a child patron category named Adult2. Even though there is no actual guarantor in the relationship, we have to use what Koha has available. I would like to see a more robust linking system in Koha, along with the options to customize what libraries can do with that system. Right now, for our library, we have two enhancements that would help our workflows and customer service: - being able to link multiple adult cards together - being able to view all linked accounts from the details page I can see this group linking as a separate system from the guarantor/guarantee system or an extension. Not sure which way would work better.
Reviewing this bug and the other Bug 31329 I would love for a way to link a group of folks, like Christopher is suggesting. We have an organization that takes responsibility for dependent adults. Having the ability to link those folks together would be far better than putting in a note like we are doing now. Also, we are the minority in that we do not want to restrict the whole family when one person's account gets restricted. If a child has an overdue book we still allow the parent to check out on their account. If 31329 goes into affect I'm worried that would completely change our process IF there wouldn't be a way to opt out of the group restricting. These two bugs do compliment each other. We are happy with how the system works now for our library aside from it having to be a child, like Michael mentioned. And we don't want to restrict the whole gang if one member goes down. Mollie's two cents. https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=31329
Mollie, I agree with you in the sense that this needs to be an opt-in toggle, or even a system preference we can turn on or off as the default preference setting. The workflows of all libraries at its core are standard. However, every library has its unique workflow and Koha's/ByWater's task is to make it such that Koha is as customizable as possible for all libraries. Hopefully the wizards at ByWater will be able work their magic to make it happen. :-)
I could see a system preference that A) Doesn't enforce group restrictions B) Enforces a group restriction C) Allows you decide on the fly when creating the group if it will enforce a group restriction or not
@Christopher...your idea would be a great springboard to start the linking of patrons in family units on which we/ByWater can build more options towards members of groups having "group permissions" or something similar. Eventually, this "group" idea could evolve into other group commonalities like book clubs or school groups or the like in which we could make one "announcement" targeting the 15 members of a group sort of like a distribution list. I know I've gone on a side tangent, but your idea of the starting point of the "groups" idea is spot on!