Keith

@dwalby - You should be able to do this if your criteria in simply based around putting the request on-hold. BUT I suspect you use the on-hold status for multiple reasons, setting a sub status when you do so and unfortunately I don't think you can check the sub status using the Await status change. A possible solution (Assuming you automatically take the request off hold on a customer response) would be to use the Await Request Off-Hold option.

@Gwynne, We did exatly that. We have a report which runs everyday and updates a sql database which we then use to report against.

@dwalby - My process is based around the need for a user to close (or reopen) a request after it has been marked as resolved so is a rather different. Essentially I set a wait status after setting to resolved then after a number of days send an automated reminder if the status has not changed. The problem I think you will find is that the Await Status change does not work on sub statuses (at least as far as know). My emails use a different template in each case with increasingly stronger wording.

Ok @Paul Davis look forward to further feedback.

Thanks @Paul Davis, would appreciate some feedback on the process.

There is a gap in visibility of problems in relation to incidents raised by me as a Hornbill customer. I raised an incident on 15/5 which was promptly marked as "resolved" with an explanation that this is a known problem with no current ETA. The specific problem was PM00151247 which to my knowledge has still not as yet been resolved. As a result my Incident is NOT resolved despite being flagged as such and I have no visibility to the problem other than being advised to watch for a specifc fix appearing in some currently unknown future release. All the while the incident raised by my customer remains open impacting my SLA's and reputation. If I don't check the release notes I am unaware that my problem is solved. I'm sorry to say this just isn't good enough. I need better visibility as to how my issue is being resolved and what the ETA is. Keith

With 1 week to go just want to confirm that this is still going ahead as planned?

Hi @James Ainsworth Thanks for the great feedback - I'm actually really pleasantly surprised by the capabilities However, on trying this out I realised a fundamental issue on my end. Our month end dates move each month/year. I presume I could maintain a full date but that would be quite an overhead and would require updating prior to each year which could cause a problem. Unless you have any further brainwaves I may just have to revert to always showing a question (which I'm a little loath to do). On a slightly different note, can I create a custom form with the priority field contained or do I have to use the predefined priority form. Ideally I would like the priority and my "month end" field on the same form. Regards Keith

Hi, I'm guessing this isn't currently possible but am wondering if there is any way to have a custom form appear in the progressive capture based on a calendar date / period. The reason for this is that we would like to collect additional information if the request relates to a month end critical incident. Keep in mind that each month end period is different but even an ability to only show the custom form between say 25th & 31st would be helpful. Appreciate any thoughts on how to achieve this. Keith

Currently we are unable to raise any requests via the service portal. The screen just shows as loading... Are any other user experiencing this?

@m.vandun @Victor This is working fine for me. There was initially a problem which was resolved.

Hi @James Ainsworth thats the correct field. Yes, we would like to be able to choose multiple companies for the site record. Regards Keith

Would it be possible for a site to be able to be allocated to multiple organisations? We have several legal entities who share the same premises and it does not make sense to duplicate the site in these instances. FYI - When we first adopted Hornbill in late 2016 it was not necessary for a site to be linked to an organisation which suited us fine. This changed over the last year whereby a site must be linked with a single organisation.

@Steven Boardman Another +1 for this

+1 - I think that would be good use of real estate. @Steven Boardman I would hope that any drill through capability of the chart would be reflected in the request list on left.

Great news @James Ainsworth Thanks for the update.

Hi @Miro, great news!! Look forward to seeing this live. Thanks Keith

@dwalby yes I have implemented this successfully on a couple of services. It's pretty easy to setup. I use the await status change functionality with an expiry date so that if it expires it triggers an email and resets another await status change event. I also use a different email template for each successive letter with stronger wording. Whilst I don;t have any hard evidence I think this has been effective and resulted in more closures. See the below thread for clearer explanation.

@Steven Boardman Sorry for being so late in coming back to you on this. Thanks for the in-depth response as always on what has or is being developed. I really appreciate all the development improvements in this area. Of course I'm sure your aware that one of the most important areas also seems to be the most challenging to implement. That being the timeline search. I hope you guys are able to make some progress on this in the near future. Best wishes Keith

Thanks @James Ainsworth

Would it be possible to add an option to copy attachments from an originating request to a newly created Linked request as part of the linked request creation. Keith

We often have a situation where requests are created against an incorrect service ( lets call this service A ). When this happens we create a linked request against another service ( B ) of the correct type to assign it to the correct team. The problem with this is that team who receive the linked request (B) need to see information contained in the original request (A). In order for them to see this, they need to be subscribing teams of service A. This is causing significant issues whereby owners of A are simply reassigning to a team supporting service B rather than raising a linked request since they can see them in the supporting teams when choosing to assign. This is causing significant frustration among the teams on both sides. What can we do to avoid this? Of course this is partly about following process, but there should be a systematic way to prevent this happening. Subscriptions are artificial as the teams in Service B are not supporting service A. What we really need is a mechanism for visibility of requests without being subscribed to the service these requests belong to. Could we please have some way of achieving this. Thanks Keith

Hi @Daniel Dekel Excellent! Thanks! Now the dreaded question - When? Regards Keith

I really like the new feature of Activity Templates! However would it be possible to define an Assignee in the template. Of course the ability to default other details i.e. Priority would also be beneficial. Thanks! Keith

@James Ainsworth good to see the recent changes to the portal i.e. Icon size and ability to affect how many services are displayed. Look forward to more work on the portal. Keith