Adrian Simpkins

Yes of course we would not want everyone added, but if it is just a name search field, and not the options we get like Team / Org etc then it should only ever be one person added at a time. I don't envisage everyone would make use of it, but it just seems like a good way to offer connections to customers that are self managed. I would envisage maybe someone going off, so connects a colleague, or manager wants to comment etc Many thanks

Thanks James - I will keep an eye out

Hi Teresa, You can specify against the Service catalogue configuration if a request can be raised in the portal, in the service desk (internal) or both. We have a full catalogue as part of our ITIL implementation and have a mixture of catalogue items that are either internal, or customer facing. You can place these under an existing customer facing service, and just set the catalogue item to be internal only, or you could have a complete stand alone Service just for internal options. As an example we have an Internal Services and a Clinical System Internal Service where only items that are non customer facing are setup, and these are used exclusively by our Service Desk and Clinical teams solely by using Raise New in Service Manager. Many thanks Adrian

Hi All I have a strange scenario occur - one of our analysts has received a notification advising a request is assigned to him, however when viewing the request he is not the owner, and has never been the owner, and has had zero interactions on the request. Just trying to work out why he got this notification please - only thing I noted is they both have the same 1st name but other than that I can not see anything out of the ordinary. He is not a member, didn't raise the request, and has no interactions from what I can see but the system advised him he is the owner? Many thanks

Hi Steve Rather than 'I am affected' by an issue, this is more just to allow customers to connect another user to allow the other person to view the request in the portal. Currently we are connecting one person in the IC / BPM flow, but I wanted to see if it would be possible for a customer to add another connection after the request has been raised. So as an example I raise a request that needs my manager comments but this is not identified until the request has been raised. I would then go into the portal and self connect another user to my request. Hope that makes sense Many thanks Adrian

Hi Steve, This is more for the teams working the requests rather than the customers. I have communicated a number of times to them how this works, but I still get queries from the analysts as to whether the update email was sent out, so was trying to lessen the queries I get. I will just reiterate the guidance to the teams but was just checking if there was anything I had missed around the update emails being generated. One of the issues is most Analysts do not have full mailbox access, so they are unable to check if the update email was sent direct, so they come to me to confirm. I will just get the team managers to reiterate the guidance confirming if it is an update that is customer facing this will send out to the customer, and will also ask them only to raise these if the customer has not received the email, rather than me just confirming it definitely went out. Thank you for confirming, appreciated as always

Hi All, Not sure if this is possible but I wanted to check is there anyway to ensure automated update emails sent from the Update node in Service Manager show in the timeline? I have searched the settings but could not see anything obvious. We have the update node enabled on all our services to send out Customer facing updates to the customers which is working fine, however I note that these update emails do not show as an email being sent, we are just seeing the update posted to the timeline. Screen shot below shows an example update which generated the email to the customer, but the posting to the timeline just shows as Update - is there anyway for this to reflect that the update was sent out via automated email other than checking the sent items in the mailbox please? Many thanks!

+ 1 from me here - this could provide some powerful data from our requests if we can calculate a value from the entered data, and I can see potential in a number of our catalogue items where we could use this functionality

Thanks for the update Dave, I will keep an eye out for the fix

Thanks Steve, much appreciated

Thanks Steve I will get someone to check if this has been updated in the new test import

Hi All just noticed this small display issue when mooching around the SLA screens - you can see the delete and config buttons appear over the text so it looks a bit messy. Not sure if this has been picked up by anyone else but I did try and search for it honest!

Hi All Just doing some work on a new assessment and noticed that the order I have set in the Assessment config is reversed in the Assessment node. So as per below screen shot I have these set as question 1 to 6 (image 1) but when working the assessment in the request they are in reverse (image 2) - is this correct? The assessment still works, and I have just reversed the order to make these appear in the right order, so not a massive issue. Just I would expect item 1 to be the 1st question as per the configuration (unless I have misunderstood the order column) Many thanks Image 1 order of questions to ask in assessment: image 2 shows question 6 being offered as question number 1:

Hi All, We have been looking to change our asset import configuration primary key from the current mapping to the asset tag/host name over to the serial number on the asset. We have made a test import configuration and imported one dummy asset. We then attempted an update to this new asset by changing just one of the data fields. On the second run this created a duplicate of the asset, and when reviewing the log file and attempting to update this dummy asset we note the below error message in the log file: 2022/10/13 09:55:37 Unable to Search for Asset: The search column 'h_serial_number' is not allowed It appears that using the serial number is throwing the above error - is this correct? Many thanks

hi All, I am not sure if this has been suggested previously, but I would like to suggest an enhancement to allow customers to connect other customers in the portal after a request has been raised. Currently we are offering a connection as part of the questions asked when a request is raised, but this allows just for the connection of one person. Would it be possible to allow customers to self-connect once a request has been raised, please? The reasoning behind this is there are certain scenarios where teams may want to connect more than one person to a request, or the need to connect someone post raising arises. Rather than have a clunky loop in the IC questions around are you connection one or more people to this request etc it would just make sense to offer this feature to our customers to manage direct in the portal. So, we would offer one connection in the raised request questions, but then can advise our customers if they want to connect further people to do this direct in the Support Hub Many thanks as always

Thanks for the update James, i will monitor the announcements for it

Hi Steve No worries if its not something that can be explored I will just tell the teams to consider a full report to avoid the issue Many thanks

Hi Steve, This is for one off on the fly reports we generate out of the request list, rather than a back end regular report. Feedback from the Users just highlights a frustration at constructing their request list data, then when they go to export it they have to re-select the already configured request list columns. So for example someone wants a one off report showing an Analysts requests in their team - it is quicker to construct a request list and export this in excel than setting up a back end report / use the oob reports. Many thanks

Hi All, I am unsure if this has been suggested previously but would it be possible to have an extra option when exporting request lists please? Currently as an example we could configure a request list view with the required column data in Service Manager which we want to export. However when you move to export this you then have to select the columns again in the column picker. Would it be possible to have an option on the export list something like 'Use displayed Columns' or something suitable to save us having to select the columns again at export? Many thanks Adrian

Thanks James, i will take a look

Hi Salma, If you set the priority to 1 in the bpm I would suggest just having an email node after that node in the BPM which sends an email out. You could also look to send a notification within the BPM as part of the BPM flow. Of course you will need to set a decision node if some requests are priority 1, priority 2 etc so the other priorities do not trigger the email / notification - this depends on your BPM flow of course. If you are setting these on the fly direct in a request I would suggest having a custom button for this, and as part of the custom button flow it could send an email onto a prescribed email list as well. For this to work effectively you could consider hiding the change priority action button in a request so analysts have to use the custom button to change a priority so that the email notification triggers correctly. Many thanks

Hi All, We have a set of printer data assets to import into the system, using the manual import .csv function. In this data we have the Department field populated but it is not updating when we import it. It looks like this field should have a simple list of some sort associated to it when viewing the newly imported test printer asset but I am unable to confirm this. Does the printer Department asset need a list defined against it in order for us to populate this field? When looking at the department field in Asset manager, it looks like there should be some options in a drop down list as I can see an arrow. Anyone able to advise further on this please? Many thanks

+1 from me - could be useful in certain scenarios

Hi, not seeing anything obvious in our instance. Does the timeline give any clues as to why it is reopened? Might narrow down if there is something there Thanks

+1 from me, this would be really powerful tool for our Service Desk to have