Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. Deen

    Deen

    Hornbill Staff


    • Points

      2

    • Content Count

      262


  2. Steven Boardman

    Steven Boardman

    Hornbill Product Specialists


    • Points

      2

    • Content Count

      1,463


  3. Gerry

    Gerry

    Root Admin


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      1,865


  4. James Ainsworth

    James Ainsworth

    Hornbill Product Specialists


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      2,183



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/12/2019 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    @Shamaila.Yousaf good to hear you got this up and running. Deen
  2. 1 point
    Hello We use an external BMS for the rest of the business, which includes all of the company policies, processes and procedures. The current scenario I am now facing is that I would like to associate documents documents maintained on our BMS to Hornbill Services, but I won't rewrite the documents in Hornbill, or upload them, because the BMS is the control for the documentation. Ideally, I would simply like to be able to very simply link to them from Document Manager. I'm sure this could be done by creating a new document and pasting the link, but it would be smoother if it could exist as just a link. Thanks Darren
  3. 1 point
    +1 This would be useful for us as well.
  4. 1 point
    @HGrigsby we are now actively working on this capability i've added you as interested connection and we'll ensure we update this post once complete
  5. 1 point
    @Shamaila.Yousaf It should be possible, when setting up your widget\measure you would need to report on the h_category field in the h_itsm_requests table. The where clause would need to have something along the lines of h_category = 'Category Name'
  6. 1 point
    This should now be sorted. The issue was an orphan project task that did not show in the project anymore but was preventing deleting the milestone. The orphan task occurred most likely as a result of an older (over 1 year) defect in Project Manager that does not occur anymore.
  7. 1 point
    Hi @mojahidm We do have a change in our backlog for this particular requirement. I've added you to the change. This is not currently scheduled, but I'll post back here as it progresses. Regards, James
  8. 1 point
    Hi @Ann-MarieJones in the current self service configuration it is not possible to change the default view i'm afraid - the user will default to their Favourite services (those which they perhaps use most often and as such want presenting on the landing page. We are enhancing self service to better accommodate the services of different business functions and at INSIGHTS19 we will be able to give you a lot more information on this See you there
  9. 1 point
    @Bob Dickinson That setting will be very helpful thank you........it might get us over the problems we're having at the moment with trying to get a well formatted email which may not be the 'default' email template for that service. So yes, this is good....thank you.
  10. 1 point
    Hi, I have managed to figure this out myself. It was actually very simple (when you know how). All you had to do was get the request details just before you stop the response timer and then start parallel processing. In the parallel processing, alongside stopping the clock simply have an automated task that updates a custom field with the assigned team from the get details. See attached, (moving from right to left). Then all that is required to get what I want is run a report of requests breaching response and look at the custom field. I do have to say though, I was very disappointed with the lack of response from Hornbill on this query, especially as it turned out to be so simple. Chris
  11. 1 point
    @Dan Munns I thought I would respond on the point above you asked about as this does come up and I thought it worthy of some commentary. When we designed our platform we looked at the type of users that would need to interact with the system and for what purpose. The essence of Hornbill is its a business process automation platform designed for the enterprise, its designed to enable different business functions to automate processes in the broader sense. Of course its probably obvious that one of our primary go-to-market streams is via Service Manager aimed at IT and Customer Service teams/organisations. So when we looked at how we should structure pricing we followed the same set of principles that we have done for as long as we have been in this market, the specific one thats relevant here is the fact that we monetise (subscriptions) based on the notion that people who "participate in the process of providing service" subscribe, while people who are the recipients of the service being provided (i.e. customers) do not need to be a subscriber, this has always seemed fair. So in light of that we have a number of user classes, specifically 'users' (who are subscribers) and then we have 'basic users' and 'guest' who do not need a subscription. 'basic users' are typically internal to your organisation while 'guest' users are typically external to your organisation. The platform provides core functionality including the Business Process Tool and the business process tool is designed to orchestrate both automated and human tasks. Human tasks are orchestrated through activities which have configurable outcomes which can drive business process flow. So BPM and Tasks (My Activities) go hand in hand, they are essentially one in the same. An authorisation therefore is simply a 'type of task' and in order to receive a task and to be able to action a task you have to be a 'user'. neither 'basic' or 'guest' users can receive, or action tasks through any means, including email. This falls under our guideline as I feel an authorisation is something that happens as part of the process of "providing a service" to a customer/end user. So this is an intentional control because this is how we structured our monetisation strategy of the platform. Pretty much every enterprise class business process automation tool out there also charges on this basis. Now in comparison to a complex application like Service Manager, it is entirely unreasonable to charge the same amount for someone that just needs to authorise things (aka a manager or budget holder) as someone that uses the main features of Service Manager daily. For this reason, Tasks are a core feature of the platform and anyone that is a 'user' of collaboration can (amongst many other great things) receive human tasks and automations orchestrated by the BPM without being a subscriber to Service Manager or any other comprehensive application). So looking at the world from a Service Manager viewpoint you can consider what we call a "Collaboration Subscription" as an "Authoriser Subscription" that also has lots of other capabilities like Collaboration, Workspaces, Messaging, Tasks and Calendar Management, Shared Mailboxes, Co-worker directory etc... a "Collaboration" user costs considerably less than a Service Manager user and has a much steeper volume discount curve, its designed that way so you can roll it out to a much wider audience within your audience, a collaboration user quickly gets down to the £2 to £3/user/month with reasonable volume and below the £2/user/month after that. I personally think thats very good value for money in comparison to other tools that can do the same job. One of our competitors I know will be asking for upwards of £15/user/month for BPM type authorisation capability. What I would encourage you (and anyone else for that matter) to think about though is this - supposing you did have this task/authorisation/collaboration capability for a much wider audience in your organisation for a modest £2 or £3/user/month, what else could you start using the tool for, how much more "value' could you extract from the tool. When you start thinking in those terms I expect most organisations could see a great ROI Sales pitch over I just thought this thread was a good opportunity to explain some of our thinking around this particular topic. Gerry
×
×
  • Create New...