Jump to content

Dan Munns

Hornbill Users
  • Content Count

    1,488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Dan Munns last won the day on December 6

Dan Munns had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

210 Excellent

About Dan Munns

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 11/18/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Birmingham

Recent Profile Visitors

2,257 profile views
  1. @Gerry yeah, saves on human error (mostly, there is always one or two who somehow manage to get through) Automate everything! Though the other stages look a little weak in comparison. One is literally 4 nodes lol
  2. Oh @Victor Welcome to my "What SLA does this request need?" phase of one of my BPMs. It wont all fit on the screen at 50% zoom and the next step down is waaaaay too small (33%). I had fun building this /s I built it like this to make it easier to manage going forward. Adding/removing sections isn't too bad. I am sure there is probably a better way doing doing this, but for setting SLA based on category which goes 3 levels deep depending on what the requestor selects from the PC it works ok and is quite quick (the analysts don't see the ticket until all this has been done anyway) Edit: I think approx 180 nodes here....
  3. Thanks @Gerry I will keep it in Prod for now and if I get any issues I will manage them as and when. Good to know a perm fix is coming though
  4. Hi @Gerry, In this instance I am using the authorisation nodes for our Impact Assessment. We have 25 teams/departments who need to respond and each authorisation node is setup for two authorisers at 100% approval each. So, only 1 person needs to respond with the impact the proposed request will have on the team (and has been agreed who it will normally be, the second is there for redundancy if required). I have made some amendments to the workflow and it 'works' almost all the time, with only 1 instance, where me and another authoriser submitted at the exact same time and caused an issue where the data was copied into 2 fields. It is mighty slow moving from the last human task before the parallel processing to the last authorisation node in the parallel processing though (though I did expect that with the amount it is spawning): So in short, I am happy that this works for what I need, even if it was a pain to build (so much configuration to automate what used to be manual email of a spreadsheet once a week). But it means that a fair few hours per week have been saved for someone when I roll it out for another, larger process.
  5. Thanks @Gerry I think it does use a global variable looking at it now because the flow code is identical for each one no matter what I do. I guess it is just keeping the last data entered until it is over written by the next note. Trying @Steve Giller decision node addition works, but I cant work out how to capture the 'Impacted' notes. And if two of the authorisations nodes are done really close it is hit and miss which notes it takes. This has definitely been one of the most frustrating BPMs I have had to build so far. I am so close to the end as well
  6. @Gerry this is a new BPM that is all fine bar this (Sod’s law I suppose). @Steve Giller, so even though there is only 1 authorisation node per lane from the start of the parallel processing, and all the authorisation nodes are different it can still interfere? As I said, if I put a reason into each authorisation they map fine. I thought that the nodes in a BPM could only ‘see’ the other nodes along the same track so how are these separated nodes seeing other tracks data? Sorry to be a pain, I’m just trying get my head around how it all works as I am going to have a few of these kind of workflows to do in the coming weeks.
  7. Hi, I am having an issue with parallel processing a number of authorisations and capturing the reasons for each one. So (buckle in this is a long one) I first of all update 25 custom fields to hold the text 'None'. I then start parallel processing and have 25 authorisation nodes, followed by 25 get authorisation detail nodes, followed by 25 update custom field nodes before finally closing the parallel processing. The update custom field nodes each update a single custom field. The first node after the parallel processing finishes is a Get Request Information node so that the responses can be emailed via a template. If all the authorisation nodes have a reason added then all custom fields are updated correctly and the template is good. If any of the authorisations don't have a reason, then the 'None' text should be left as is, however this is not the case. It seems the 'None' nodes are picking up the reasons from other authorisations nodes but I cant see why this is the case. The BPM looks like this: In the email template IT Security should say 'IT Sec Stuff' and the others should all say 'None' but they have taken the info from the IT Sec authorisation/custom field: I cant seem to work out why this is happening, as it only happens to the ones that have no reason (if the user selects 'No impact' for which I am using 'accept' then reason is optional, if the user selects 'Impacted' (refuse) then reason is mandatory. I dont want to force a reason for both to just get different variations on 'None'. I need to be able to report on the 'None' replies which is why I am doing it this way) So TL:DR....HELP!! Thanks Dan
  8. hi, We are suddenly getting the following message when trying to access the instance: All services show as operational on the status page, though on the support page is shows as failed
  9. @Steven Boardman stop on, thanks! Didn't realise this config was hiding away under collaboration (though it makes sense now I think about it). Thanks again.
  10. Hi, I have an issue where I need to use the authorisation reason as a variable to update a custom field. This isn't currently possible however so can anyone suggest a workaround or can someone from Hornbill add me to/create a change for this functionality please? Thanks, Dan
  11. Ok, so I can see the new field in the h_sys_accounts table, just nowhere else. Is this just phase one of a two part change?
  12. Hi, I noticed the ESP update notes last night: I am assuming that I should be able to see the new field in the user account page? And also the Data Import page as well? I am also assuming that this is not visible because our instance hasn't been updated yet (I have cleared cache and all the other stuff to try and get it to show). If this is the case can I request our instance is updated ASAP. I really need to get this change in as soon as possible. Thanks, Dan
  13. Can we also have all of the custom fields added as well please?
  14. Hi, Can we have Change Type added in the condition builder for creating views please? This will make it a lot easier to create views around changes as at the minute I have to remember to add the change type to a custom field in the BPM for all change type requests. Thanks Dan
×
×
  • Create New...