Lauren

Is there a way that reports can be emailed to certain addresses after it has been scheduled to run? As an example, we'd like a report detailing our high priority incidents (and call-outs) to certain members of staff and management. This was something that was possible in Supportworks, but I don't seem to see an option to do this? Alternatively, is there a way of emailing a document from Document Manager (after scheduling the report to publish there)? Thanks Lauren

Thanks @Steven Boardman

Hi We've utilised "relatedEntityData.record.h_custom_l" in our incident details form as a way of identifying whether an incident has warranted a call-out of an IT engineer or not: It shows as a simple check-box for the IT engineer to check if they've been called out by the business. I need to be able to report on this, but cannot locate the table in which the custom fields available in the "Details" form are stored. Are you able to help, please? Thanks Lauren

Hi, I have a few queries that have come about from our testing of Project Manager: 1. Is there a way to add a dependency, once a task has been created? It seems you can only add a dependency when you create a task. 2. Can you assign a task to more than one person? Virtually all of our tasks will have more than one person working on them. 3. Can you make a milestone depend on another milestone? Thanks Lauren

Hi We are looking at raising requests directly from assets. Within a request in Service Manager, you're able to raise a linked request using the "Raise Linked Request" button within the "Link" tab. I cannot see that there is a similar option when viewing an asset - are you able to confirm please? Whilst looking into the above, we looked at the use of custom buttons and the iBridge function in particular. We could only locate "Log Incident" or "Log Service Request" under "Log New Request" - are there any plans to add Change or Release to this list? Thanks Lauren

Hi @Steven Boardman Do you know if this can be amended please? Thanks Lauren

Hi Currently, to ensure linked incidents are updated from a parent incident, there needs to be a node somewhere in the business process. This works, however the point at which an engineer will update a parent incident, as well as the number of times a parent may be updated, varies between each incident. What we require, is something similar to the "Resolve linked requests" drop-down you get on the "Resolve" tab when there are linked requests, but for updating on the "Update" tab. We need to be able to filter down every single update from a parent incident to the child incidents, without it being dependent on the business process. Is this something that is possible, or is there a different way to that outlined above, to achieve this? Thanks Lauren

Thanks @Chaz - I've amended the process accordingly and will see what happens when a request is next added to that board :-)

Hi @James Ainsworth @Steven Boardman @Victor Sorry to pick on the three of you - do you have any suggestions following my query above? Lauren

Hi We've come across some requests that have been logged under the wrong service. To give some context, we have our departments as services - IT Services, Facilities etc. One request that we had logged recently to Facilities was relating to power, but actually it was something that required IT intervention to resolve. We've come up with a few solutions around this, including: - Adding members of Facilities' and IT Service's Service Desks as supporting members of the other service (to be able to re-assign) - Amending wording on our progressive captures to advise customers of the correct way of logging We need advice on the best way to deal with these. Sometimes it isn't obvious to the customers which department their query/fault should be logged under, so educating our customers isn't always the easiest option. If there are any organisations that have a similar issue, we'd like to know how you deal with these situations. Similarly, any Hornbill gurus who have an idea, please do share! Thanks Lauren

Hi We are currently looking to improve our incident business process. We utilise activities to capture why an incident has breached, using 6 outcomes (e.g. third party fix, delayed assignment etc.) and an additional "Reason" box to gather further info. Our current process is configured to allow the analyst to resolve a breached incident, prior to completing the breach activity. If the breach activity isn't completed, it will expire after a set time. The concern with this, is that the incident doesn't change from "Resolved" to "Closed" until after that breach activity is completed (the auto-close function is set to 5 days, therefore it won't close until the activity has been completed PLUS the 5 days). Is it possible - at the point the analyst presses "Resolve" after completing their resolution text/category - the system auto-generates a breach activity. This activity must then be completed by the analyst before they are able to resolve the incident fully. I am aware that at this point the actual resolution timers won't have been marked. If there was a mechanism to calculate whether or not at that point the fix time had been met, it could prompt the analyst as outlined above. This would also prevent the auto-close of the request (as mentioned above) being any longer than 5 days. I welcome any thoughts/suggestions with regards to this. Lauren

Hi @James Ainsworth That's exactly what we're looking for! Thank you. Lauren

Hi @Victor Thanks for your response - having that manual task would work, but it seems a long winded-way to get around the issue we're facing. Could we request the setting, prevent resolution of requests without a priority set, as an enhancement please? Thanks Lauren

Thanks @Victor However this isn't exactly the same as the function in Supportworks. The function in Supportworks didn't take you through the call script again, whereas the "Linked Requests" function in Service Manager does. Lauren

Hi @Victor Thanks for your reply - I did mean altering the activity outcome after it has been completed. I thought that would be the case, thank you anyway. Lauren

Hi In Supportworks, we had the ability to make copies of requests. This made it easier when logging multiple requests for one user, as it would copy over customer details as well as the first call note/summary. Is there a similar function in Service Manager? Thanks Lauren

Hi We utilise activities largely, whether they're generated from business process, or raised from assets, or even raised without a linked entity. We cannot see a column in the "My Activities" area that lists who the requester or creator of the activity is. Is there a setting I can enable to amend the columns available in the "My Activities" list, or is it not possible ? Thanks Lauren

Hi Is there a way of amending the outcome of an activity at all? We have some activities that are generated as part of business processes, but the outcome doesn't influence what happens next so wouldn't necessarily impact anything that happens after. Thanks Lauren

Hi James Unfortunately we use our sub-statuses for other purposes. As an example, we use sub-statuses for our parent/child selection with incidents. We also have a sub-status to indicate if a request has been faulted out to a third party. Are there any other alternatives? Thanks Lauren

Hi We've found that some of our requests are being resolved by analysts without a priority being set - despite there being a mandatory checkpoint to set a priority. We've located a setting to stop a request being resolved/closed without an owner, but no similar setting for the priority. Is there a setting to prevent the resolution of requests that do not have a priority set? We've thought about locked buttons, but unfortunately they don't fit our varying incident types. Thanks Lauren

Hi I've had a handful of analysts ask if there is a column that can be set in the request list that shows the checkpoint that the request has either most recently completed, or the next checkpoint in the business process. Is this something that is possible? I've suggested using boards for this however for some analysts this doesn't appear to be sufficient. Thanks Lauren

+1 this would be really useful

Hi @James Ainsworth @Ehsan @Steven Boardman Further to @Lightsource's first point, are there any planned changes to enable us to change/remove the answers to questions from the captures? We are a Police force and unfortunately some of our users include sensitive information in their requests, therefore it is important that we can remove this information before more analysts see it. Thanks Lauren

Hi @James Ainsworth @Daniel Dekel @Steven Boardman Sorry to pick on you - I unfortunately need this information urgently, if it is possible. Are you able to confirm whether we can extract this data, and if so what the table/field is? Thanks Lauren

+1