lee mcdermott

@Victor thanks victor.

Hi, If I have a human activity node with an expiration time on it, will this time only be applied during SLA times? I.e if it was logged out of hours and reached this node will the timer count while out of hours or wait until normal operating hours before starting to count? thanks lee

@Steven Boardman Hi Steve, hope you had a good weekend, Can I just confirm there is no way to suspend a node and wait for an update that will start again when the customer updates or the call is updated by the system auto responder (i.e. after an emial update on the call)? I was hoping any update on the call may trigger the node to continue, ive even tried updating the call by applying the update via the mailbox hoping it may trigger the node to continue as it has had an update from analyst rather than the system, but this didn't seem to work either? If it can't be done thats fine I will abandon my current method I am trying to get working and change my process. thanks lee

@Steven Boardman Hi steve was just about to update you think I have it sorted I think my application and scope was wrong, my screen shot must have been from the test hornbill one , where as mine was slightly different. I think it's been a long week and I have too many tabs open updating various things so getting confused as to which one is the one i am actually working on Anyway it seems to be working now, and I think maybe i should call it a day for this week and start a fresh next week. I think it is all working as I want now any way, maybe just a few tweaks to wording here and there. cheers for your help again

@Steven Boardman hi steve me again. I'm making good progress and have most of my new change working. However one part which I have copied directly from the TEST RFC supplied by yourelves the other week I cannot get to work. After the Human task to select approve, reject or more info required - starts the loop as shown, It then is meant to get the output from the decision and the details entered to then populate the custom field p with that info so it can be added into a email template. this is a human task not an authorisation node so not sure if that makes a difference - although i did try it using "Get Task Details" rather than get last authorisation details but still didnt work. the custom p field is - &[global["flowcoderefs"]["resultRef"]["completionDetails"]] Then the send email uses a template with custom _p to populate the email the email isn't populated with any info and just shows as above the variable, so i assume the custom field has not been populated with any information. Also the next part of the loop does the same and populates custom fied t, but this doesnt work either. Any ideas am i missing something obvious? thanks lee

@Steven Boardman cheers that all makes sense, i may just stick with the method we are currently using for the approval part, all the rest of the process is still an improvement on what were were doing so is still better than it was.

@Steven Boardman thanks again, the cab members are emailed via a distribution group email that contains all the cab members in it. So it may potentially work as they would all still get the email, it would depend if multiple people could use the same link and authorise, would need to incorporate some sort of loop or dual authorisation node to accommodate 2 authorisers. I might do a bit of testing with this just to see how it works? to get it working how I am trying involves the ability to add a wait for update node. So are you saying it wont be possible to have a wait for update node that can be triggered by an email response(update to the call)? If not does the wait for update as below work by waiting and will it move on when any update is received on the call, so would this progress if an email update is received on the call? also i assume this wont work? Ideally it would be easier if an email response from the CAB members with approved or rejected or more inforamtion in the subject field could progress the call automatically - maybe a routing rule?

@Steven Boardman unfortunately they are all non Hornbill users, hence the reason I have to do it via email. I got a new change template (BPM and Pro cap)from yourselves last week, but have had to re work it to try and work the approval process via email. Our current change process also works via email and emails CAB members, I'm just trying to refine it and automate as much as possible so the service desk have minimal tasks to do

@Steven Boardman cheers for the help. So basically when a change gets logged it emails our CAB board members, I have a template created that populates the emails and then has a approve reject, more information required link on the email. they click the lick it auto populates the subject field, so when they send it it comes back in and updates the call with approved, more info or rejected. We need 2 responses for an approval, so my thinking was suspend the call and wait for an update via email on the call, then move onto another wait for update via email (i.e. 2 updates) this then sends an email after this to the service desk to check the change and if it has 2 approval, a reject, or more info required they have a decision to make which progresses the change accordingly. i have built in a loop incase an update on the call is a persons out of office and not a proper response. Ideally it would be easier if an email response from the CAB members with approved or rejected or more inforamtion in the subject field could progress the call automatically - maybe a routing rule? but wasn't sure if that could be done? it would save the service desk having to manually check the responses after 2 updates.

@Steven Boardman success on the assign to team - thanks for that..so it should have been display value not raw value? any thoughts on the wait for update via email respone query?

@Steven Boardman also yes i was using the raw value - to be honest i wasnt sure what the difference was so just picked one?

@Steven Boardman thanks steve, your working late? will try that now, busy testing the other path - this one is for when the change is a standard change still got to get the normal & emergency side done. the standard side is all working except the assign to team part. one quick question i am trying to get it to suspend call and only move on when it has an update from an email - as below I had the action focus as Email -but that didn't seem to work, so just changed it to update and going to try that. but it may mean it will move on for any update - ideally only want it to move on from an email response to the call? any ideas? sorry for all the questions - am i ok asking all these as I go through it?

@Steven Boardman hi steve, still struggling to get it to assign to a team. Does the below look correct? Again it doesn't error just bypasses it and doesnt do anything? the pro cap custom form one of the questions to select which team &[functions.pcf("StandardChange","h_custom_e_value")]

@Steven Boardman Hi Steve, managed to get the boards working thanks. Next issue is I'm trying to get it to assign it to a team based on an answer in a custom form in the Pro cap as below - should this work? On the Pro cap form i have the field ID as - h_custom_e on the BPM I have below where the Team variable is - &[functions.pcf("details","h_custom_e_value")] i used the variable picker and selected the procap form and selected Overwrite raw value? not really sure the difference been overwrite and inject. anyway this doesnt work - it just by passes this part and moves onto the implemetation stage (it doesnt fail or error) but also doesnt assign the call to the required team? any ideas?

@Steven Boardman Ive now removed the move card on board node and was going to try it again.

@Steven Boardman also as i had managed to get a call added to the board but then the rest of the bpm failed - how do i now remove that one from my board?

@Steven Boardman thanks steve I will do a little more tweaking to see if i can get it working based on the above. Just to clarify will this fail if an analyst logs a call using this process (bpm) and they are not in the Board BPM Access role?

Hi, I'm trying to get a new BPM working and it keeps failing with the adding and moving on Boards automation. Can someone clarify how or what the process is. I have the below now (taken from a hornbill template) which has added it now to the board but my next node was to move it to a lane which has failed(however that lane is the first lane of the board - so maybe isn't needed?) Am I correct in thinking that when adding to a board it will always add it to the first lane on the board first? then you need to add another node to move it to a different lane? Also does the TITLE option below allow you to add text to the card rather than just having the call ref showing? thanks lee

@James Ainsworth ignore the above...rookie mistake..I hadn't re published my new BPM after making changes to it (which was a copy of the RFC Test one) hence the reason i thought it was using the other PM as they were the same initially. So I think i am at the stage to start testing and debugging issues as my first logging has failed with errors....dam it.

@James Ainsworth hi James that process adjustement has worked in terms of giving me the option to go down a testing route so thats really useful thanks. I still have wierd issue hopefully you can help with. My switch capture sends me to my new Pro Cap for logging a change. As part of the Pro capture I have a select service option - in the service list I have a Test service where I have my Change catalog item configured under "changes" as below. however for some reason I cannot get it to pickup and use the BPM RFCv2? Any ideas? it seems to use a test RFC called RFC Test that is configured on the RFC Test catalog item shown in image below rather than that configured in the RFCv2 one? Am i missing something obvious or how do you get it to pick up a different BPM?

@James Ainsworth thanks james that sounds like a good workaround, I will try and get this setup and tested. I will let you know if it works, as my other issue I was having was when it does my switch capture for some reason it was using the wrong BP? I will test again and let you know thanks lee

Hi, i have created a new change process and want to be able to test it. however at preset settings are as below - so when selecting a change everyone uses the same RFC proc cap and BP. Is there any way to add or enable myself to be able to select log a change and be directed to a new procap and BP with out affecting the above so everyone else continues using the current one until I have thoroughly tested the new one? I have created a test area (test service only I have access to) and tried adding the new procap and bp to a new form, but due to the fields required to complete the form it needs to be loggged via the servie desk rather than via the portal otherwise it misses some of the required questions you need to answer. i cannot see how or where I can start or access the new form? The log a request button currently starts a proccap form that then does a switch capture to various other forms depending on the service selected during logging. Ive tried doing a switch capture to the new rfc proc capture which sort of works (it means I have to answer various questions before i even switch to my rfc form which is not ideal but then it also seem to pick up the wrong BP as well? Any help or guidance ideas anyone? many thanks lee

@Steven Boardman thats great thanks steven

Hi, I'm busy setting up a new BP and have created a loop after a decision depending on a previous outcome. There is a human task to complete prior to the loop. My question is once a human task has been created and actioned and if the loop takes you back to just before that human task will it be created again so that the same actions\answers\outcomes can be selected? As I have created a loop I do want it to recreate the human task to be actioned again. I'm still designing the BP so not had a chance to test it to see what it does. thanks lee

@Victor thanks victor, sounds overly complicated, think I will stick with links, just thought a button looks nicer...