Keith

Thanks for letting me know @Steven Boardman

Excellent @Steven Boardman no major rush, but I do think it will be of great use. Cheers Keith

@Steven Boardman this is a great feature and I look forward to it hitting our live instances. However, what is equally impressive is the way you manage to make your progressive captures look. They are always both informative and visually appealing. I understand that wiki markup is used to some extent and am aware of the basics of wiki markup but think we would all benefit from a worked example of how you format your progressive captures with images etc. Any chance you could oblige with a video? Regards Keith

OK Thanks @James Ainsworth

Thanks @James Ainsworth I'll await further update on more specific visibility details before turning Manager on. Regards Keith

Hi Gerry, Thanks for the response. In honesty I hadn't considered that having a collaboration license might solve the problem. Essentially yes I am asking for this functionality in the portal, but that wasn't from a perspective of cost avoidance, though of course that is a consideration. The main problem I see with your suggestion is one of potential confusion for the user. Normally we expect users to be using the portal and it may be that in a majority of requests this is fine. But if they are an SAP key User (we have hundreds of these) they "may" be required to carry out UAT on occasion. In other words, they may spend the majority of their time in the portal but on occasion they would have to login to the "live" collaboration environment to process any open activity. Am I correct in that thinking? Regards Keith

Thanks @Gerry, sounds promising for the future at least then. Over to you @James Ainsworth

Is there a way to restrict visibility of updates in a request to the service desk admin or manager? I would like to add comments that neither the team nor customer would see. Regards Keith

We are struggling with finding a way to record User Acceptance Testing (UAT) for our change/development processes and would welcome feedback on how others are accomplishing this. The Hornbill portal only allows a UAT to be triggered following the resolution of a request by clicking on the "It's Working" or "It's Still Broken" buttons. However, in our process we require an additional User Acceptance. I am referring to the testing and acceptance of things like programming or configuration changes which require user testing in a test environment before moving to a production system. I believe that a request should only be marked as resolved when the issue is fixed in the production environment. As such a user has no opportunity from within the portal with which they can confirm the changes are working in the test environment. In our current process we create a User Testing task which we complete when we have written confirmation from the user that they are happy. However, our auditors will not accept that we complete the task on the users behalf. We must have a way in the portal that the user con confirm User Acceptance at a testing stage prior to resolution of the request. I have given thought to setting a request as resolved at the testing stage but this has a detrimental affect on being able to indicate the solution as now being in a production environment and we would also want to record user acceptance that the solution is also working in the production system. If you are following a similar development process I would really welcome your input. Regards Keith

OK @Victor thanks for following up.

@Victor Any news on this? Can I expect a fix in an update soon

Thanks @Ehsan, This is way that I have previously advised analysts to do this. The only problem here is that each Analyst has to set up their own view. I just wondered if I was missing anything else. Thanks for your support. Keith

Thanks @Ehsan that is a useful way to see a specific customers requests. However, I can't help but think its a little counter intuitive for an analyst to have to navigate away from the request list to see what essentially looks like a filtered request list or equivalent. Wouldn't it make more sense for analysts to be able to see their requests in the request list? Thanks Keith

A lot of my analysts are struggling to view requests where they are the customer of the request. There is an expectation that they would see these in the "My Requests" view but this is not the case. I'll hold of with what I advise them to do, but wondered where should they view these requests? What are others doing? Regards Keith

This is exactly what I have been trying to develop in a BPM whereby I have nested "wait status change" requests with expiry times, with each sending an email. However there is a problem with the timers not getting reset which Hornbill are looking into - @Victor is aware of this (or do you have a better solution?) See this thread

Hi @James Ainsworth I was referring to the timeline search. I don't want to highjack this thread so please advise if I should raise this elsewhere but let me first explain our scenario and then I'll explain what we are doing. We have many requests for changes to our our SAP system which result in in-house developments and program changes (we currently use Service Requests for this as the change requests were not available to users in the portal at time of implementation). When we make such changes we are required to record the results of the user acceptance testing and only if accepted by the user can we move our changes to the production environment. As the request is not considered 'resolved' until the solution is provided in the production environment the user has no structured way to advise us if the testing is successful or not (by using the "It's working" button for instance in the portal). What we are doing today! - We are having to make do with simply asking the user to perform UAT and then confirm in writing that they have performed this testing. This is in the form of an update to the request or an email reply recorded in the request. Our Auditors are then sampling random requests and looking for proof of testing which could be anywhere in the timeline which is often extensive. This would maybe be OK with one or two requests but impossible with a sample of 50-60 or more requests. The ability to search the timeline would help so much here and is frustrating us because it is something we had in our previous home grown solution. What we really need! - We really need a robust solution whereby a user has a testing action of some kind that that is exposed in the portal and results in them declaring a pass or failure (similar to the existing portal buttons). We would want to report on requests based on this value. With the continuous auditor pressure we are getting desperate for some kind of solution or process change to support this requirement. Perhaps we need to engage with a product specialist directly on this or even expert services. Can you suggest how best to move forward with this. Regards Keith

@James Ainsworth Any news on this? This has become hyper critical for us. We are being bombarded with requests from auditors to provide evidence of user testing and are having to manually read through and find this evidence on hundreds of requests. This is simply unworkable for us. I really need a realistic time frame.

Excellent Idea Martyn, I have been having to put a calendar entry into my calendar to remember to retire some bulletins.

Thanks @alextumber I'll look forward to trying out the changes.

Many thanks @James Ainsworth for the quick response. Regards Keith

Hi, I have had reports from a colleague that their previous dashboard is no longer working as expected. Has anything changed? For a 7 day period we previously used e.g. : h_dateresolved >= current_date-7 AND h_fk_team_name='LMS IT NA Service and Support' This does not work anymore. We now need to use : h_dateresolved >= DATE_SUB(current_date, INTERVAL 7 DAY) AND h_fk_team_name='LMS IT NA Service and Support' Regards Keith

@Victor, Thanks for following up and confirming. Hopefully not too big a challenge for the Dev team. Let me know if I need a support request, I was hoping to implement this soon as a followon action from our latest audit. Regards Keith

@Victor Good to at least hear that its not misconfiguration on my part look forward to your results of testing on your own instance. Thanks Keith

@James Ainsworth I have now modified all our BPM's to update the External reference with our OpCo details. However, my elation was short lived when I realised that the External Reference is not available as part of the My Dashboard charting. Can this please be added relatively quickly? Regards Keith

@Victor, new request created IN00047425 - Still no luck