Jump to content

Gemma Morrison

Hornbill Users
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Gemma Morrison last won the day on December 27 2019

Gemma Morrison had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Gemma Morrison's Achievements


Enthusiast (6/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. Hello, We are experiencing our service requests and incidents progressive captures following our 'no match' option via the selection progressive cap which use 'switch capture' nodes...we have made no changes and cannot find what the issue is to fix it. The BPM's seem to be in working order. Any ideas @Bob Dickinson @Victor - This has been raised via the support process via Paul Wilcock but we really need an answer/help please
  2. @James Ainsworth Hi James, Hope you are well. Sorry to be a pain! I have got it working, yay! However within some of those stages we have skipped we have some authorisation tasks for the team to complete, is there a way of keeping these at all? or would I need to pop them into the 'in progress' stage?
  3. @James Ainsworth Hi James, hope you are well. I have only just got round to looking into this setting! I have applied the setting and can't seem to figure out where to place the end node in order to skip certain checkpoint stages. In my picture screenshot above I am trying to skip 'amendment of supplier' for an example to then go straight to resolution and feedback... is this possible at all?
  4. Thank you @James Ainsworth I will test this next week @Alisha FYI!
  5. Hi, Within a BPM I know you can skip a checkpoint stage, however this would still appear in the heads up display, would there be a way of potentially hiding a stage you do not require for that p0articlaur request at all? The screenshot below shows 2 different stages 'amendment of supplier' and 'new supplier' I was wondering if it would be possible to hide either of these depending on the request that has been logged via the request category..
  6. +1 please! this would prevent sending emails to incorrect individuals and would benefit our team a lot!
  7. @lokent @Will Meekings @John Delamare-Timms
  8. Hello @James Ainsworth is there any update in regards to Alisha's idea at all please?
  9. This is really affecting our teams having to manually re-assign the requests! Help! @Bob Dickinson Do you have any ideas?
  10. I think it has worked! Thanks @Victor Hope you have a lovely Christmas and a happy New Year!
  11. @Victor Sorry to be a pain however I have just added in the brackets but it has brought back all records since our go live date?! :s am I getting it wrong?
  12. @Victor Hi Victor, I know! trying to make the day go faster! Thank you, that's really helpful! I did have to re-read it a few times to get my head around it but I will give it a go and let you know how I get on!
  13. Hi Bob, Yes I am sorry! The screenshot is below for you, however I have run and downloaded the report as I noticed that the preview can be incorrect sometimes as you have said! thanks for getting back to me so quickly!
  • Create New...