March 30, 2026
It is early spring, which means we are getting close to Technology Refresh (TR) time. What new functionality will IBM add to the IBM i operating system and related products? Nobody knows except IBM and its closest business partners, but we can get an idea of what might be cooking in the next IBM i TR by checking out the IBM Ideas Portal.
The IBM Ideas Portal was implemented back in 2022 to replace the IBM Request for Enhancement (RFE) process, which IBM formalized with a Web-based voting and ranking system back in 2016. The Ideas Portal works as the fifth formal channel for input on IBM i enhancements, alongside the COMMON Americas Advisory Council (CAAC), COMMON Europe Advisory Council (CEAC), the Large User Group (LUG), and IBM’s ISV Advisory Council.
The IBM Ideas Portal has been a fruitful source of suggestions for new features, fixes, and upgrades to the IBM i platform over the years. The IBM i community has suggest about 4,860 ideas for the IBM i platform over the years, and IBM has delivered the change on about 28 percent of the requests while rejecting about 43 percent through various tags like “not under consideration,” “functionality already exists,” or the dreaded “is a defect.” About 22 percent of the ideas are tagged for “future consideration,” while about 3 percent have been “submitted” and about 1 percent are “under review.” Currently, only one idea is “planned for future release,” while IBM “needs more information” for another two.
Here is the status of all IBM i Ideas submitted to the IBM Ideals Portal.
Here are the 11 most popular ideas submitted since October 1, 2025, starting with the most popular ideas. These are ideas that have received at least 15 votes, that have not been kiboshed yet by IBM and which have resonated with the community, based on the number of votes, comments by reviewers, and other considerations:
“As an outsourcing provider managing numerous customers and hundreds of LPARs, we frequently encounter challenges due to the current restriction of 25 machine code downloads per day. This limitation significantly impacts our ability to perform essential tasks such as multiple OS release upgrades, which often require downloading cross-reference PTFs across versions. The existing process for requesting additional download capacity via email to fixexp@us.ibm.com typically takes 1–2 weeks for approval and is valid for only a short period. This results in repeated requests and operational delays. In some cases, we reach the daily limit while handling active IBM cases that require immediate download and application of specific PTFs, forcing us to wait until the next day or seek alternative IBM IDs internally. We propose that IBM implement a streamlined, automated solution that allows customers to submit requests for increased machine code PTF download limits and receive approval within one hour.” This idea, which was submitted on December 9, received 94 votes and generated quite a bit of discussion. IBM responded by increasing the number of PTF downloads to 50 orders per user per day. However, some users state that is not enough. IBM says it is working with Fix Central to “look into these issues.”
“SQL has the nice feature, to use optionally use keyword parameters instead of positioned parameters. My idea is, also extend RPG prototyped procedure calls with the option to use keyword parameters…This new syntax would have the following advantages: better readability; still backward compatible as omitted parameters can be checked with %passed(…); no need for new prototypes – but not possible of unnamed parameters are used in the prototype; inline with SQL syntax; inline with other modern languages like Python, Ruby or Swift.” This idea was submitted December 1 and has received 40 votes. It’s being considered for future releases.
“When changing a password upon expiration or during CHGPWD execution, if a blank or non-alphabetic character is entered in the current/new password field, the message CPF5222 ‘Name is not correct’ is displayed. However, this message does not clearly explain the error until the details are viewed. Please improve the wording so the error is clear from the message title alone.” This idea was submitted on November 5 and has received 32 votes. IBM says it will use the idea as input, and it is tagged as “future consideration.”
“I’m missing a way to define a field in a copy source using a field reference file. It could either be an extended version of LIKE() or a new LIKEFLD().
For example: dcl-s myField1 LIKEFLD(fldref.format2 : myField : +5)
dcl-s myField2 LIKE(fldref.format1/myField : +5)
Of course, fields defined in data structures should use the same keyword. The +5 is a length adjustment known from the LIKE() keyword. Today I have to either hardcode the size of the field or create a template data structure but the problem using the template is that it defines about 5000 fields. So the latter solution is not used much.” This idea was submitted on November 10 and has received 29 votes. IBM says it is a duplicate of an existing idea, and is under future consideration.
“When calling SQL stored procedures and User defined Functions parameters can be passed with an argument list (i.e., naming the parameter and assigning the parameter value to the named parameter). Would be great if we could call (prototyped) Programs and Procedures in the same or similar way. The parameter name could be taken from the Procedure Interface (or may be the programmers can be forced to name their parameters in the Prototypes, if they want to use this Call method). Optional Parameters or omitted parameters just could be skipped. It would be really helpful for programs and procedures with a bunch of parameters. Would be easier to read and also to code.” This idea was submitted on February 27 and has received 25 votes. It is listed for future consideration.
“Currently looks like SQL HTTP Functions on support HTTP/1.1. I have a vendor that is requesting that HTTP/2 be used with API.” This idea was submitted on October 28 and has received 21 votes. It’s currently tagged for future consideration.
“Currently there is no tool available to assist Admins when reviewing PTF cover letters prior to loading and installing PTFs. This would be helpful as there are thousands of PTF’s in a typical deployment. It is impossible to review each cover letter manually in a timely manner; it would take months. The tool should download all cover letters applicable to the PTF package(s) being deployed, allow for exclusions of Special or Activation instructions to parse the amount of cover letters that will need to be reviewed manually.” This idea, submitted on October 9, 2025, has received 17 votes. The CAAC has recommended this as a medium-priority item for IBM, which categorized the idea for “future consideration.”
“When you retrieve the source of a CLP or CLLE program you must indicate a source file, for example: QCLSRC, but it is impossible to indicate the IFS example: /HOME/USER/CLLE/. The idea is therefore to add the SRCSTMF() parameter to the RTVCLSRC command.” This idea was submitted on October 24, 2025, and has received 29 votes. IBM says it will use this idea as input for planning, and has listed it as “future consideration.”
“We have the RPG built in function %PROC to return the name of the current procedure, I think it is time that we have the same for the name of the current program. By all means, we can get this from the program status data structure, it would just be easier to have available in a built in function too.” Idea submitted January 4 and has received 19 votes. Currently listed as future consideration.
“Currently, the Qicc_list_files_in_cloud API in the 5733ICC product (IBM Cloud Storage Solutions for i) is not working, and there is no substitute for a list of files uploaded and/or present in COS.” This idea was submitted on January 7 and has received 18 votes. It is currently tagged “submitted.”
“When moving one customer from a SAAS LPAR to his own LPAR, you must be restoring ALL user profiles to get all Authorization lists. The SAAS LPAR is running multiple customers with over 1500 user profiles. If you want to move one customer with about 40 users this is a pain in the a$$. Would be great to only restore the Authorization Lists this customer uses.” This idea was submitted on October 15 and has received eight votes. The CAAC has recommended this as a medium-priority item for IBM, which categorized the idea for “future consideration.”
RELATED STORIES
Want To Influence IBM i’s Direction? Consider Joining An Advisory Council