Adam Toms

I could see some benefit for us to, if this was a feature, so will +1.

+1 this is happening to us also.

Hello, I thought I'd try and reach out to other forum members who may using Teams chat virtual agent Hornbill Service Manager integration to get some ideas. We're testing this at the moment, and we've been able to get updates, and pull back out FAQ's. Where we differ from some customers, as we have multiple different Incident and Request catalogue items, based on service. I'd be keen to understand how others are using that might be in similar setup. Failing that I think it might be an option to set up a new service in the portfolio exclusively for the use of virtual agent and have an incident and service request for virtual agent interaction tickets. Thanks in advance Adam

Just to provide an update on this. We've shared this button to our senior leadership team within our IT department as well as ourselves in Service Management, and it's working very well.

Thanks @Steve Giller that's a good idea. I hadn't thought about custom buttons behind an Auto Task to achieve this. I agree we'd need to be sensible on who we make the button available to but that gives me something to go on. Many Thanks Adam

Hi all, Is there some sort of global setting that we can enable which allows an email notification to go out to individuals, when an incident has been set and investigated at a lower priority but then realise it's a bigger issue so for example upgrading from a P2 to a P1 for example? Or is this something we would need to add as an additional configuration inside our Incident Business Process Engine? I'd be keen to know how others have this set up. Many Thanks Adam

Thanks for this information @Daniel Dekel that's much appreciated.

Hi @Jamie A, I'm not sure if this would help for what you're trying to achieve, but adding this in as a connection group is something that we've done. We've done for a few specific incidents and requests where a group of connections need to be aware of the tickets. Connections Action Item - Hornbill Many Thanks Adam

Hi all, I just wanted to follow up on this as I made the edits over the course of the weekend, last weekend. Implementation went smoothly, and our email routing rules automatically picked up the name change, which I was pleasantly surprised about, and we'd not broken the automation of various jobs we have configured in iBridge and ITOM. Whilst I appreciate different members will have configured their instances differently, I hope this feedback and this information will prove useful for anyone else, who might be contemplating a similar amendment. Many Thanks Adam

Hi @Andrea Packham We use quick calls and ours are configured as per @Steve Giller's recommendation. Which have the summary assignee team and process engine all configured to auto resolve once the ticket has been raised by the Service Desk. This then becomes a catalogue item, just visible on the agent ticket logging portal and open to all customer areas so the Service Desk can log, we've probably got about 8 set up all configured to use their own Intelligent Capture and BPM so the appropriate resolution is configured into the ticket, so for example Printer Driver install, is always going to be driver installed and printer made available to the customer, for example. I've attached screenshots of our BPM to try and help with configuring this.

Thanks @Daniel Dekel for confirming there is no limit. Without wishing to go in to too much detail (due to the sensitive nature of what we do) I wanted to provide some background to why we've done it this way. It is a complex service, and this is the only one that gets anywhere near this in terms of the number of catalogue items being available, but given the nature of our telemetry estate, we need incidents, for the application, various communication paths to cover cellular and fixed for example and the specialist hardware. All with various different SLAs preconfigured for the different agreements with our suppliers our OT and IT department etc. As you can imagine requests for access and new kit it's incredibly easy without trying to get to the number we've reached. We did try and separate some of this out but this created big issues with incorrect tickets being logged, customers not being able to find the right location etc. etc. By grouping under the one service we could guarantee that everything that was in support that had been agreed in the one place for our customers and colleagues to request. I hope this background information helps and to help with any testing this seems to occur when subscribed to 30 or more catalogue items in one service, when you split this between 15 incidents and 15 Service Requests it's not lots when you have a complex service like this. Many Thanks Adam

Hi @Martyn Houghton, Thanks for your message. Yes, even after pressing the load more button the missing catalogue item doesn't appear. Yet when you search using the search feature it does. The only way I can describe it, is like we've hit some sort of limit. But there isn't a setting I've seen for being able to define a limit or change when the load more button appear for the number of catalogue items being displayed. As my colleague who helped us configure the employee portal has left, I'd say that's probably where I have the biggest gap in terms of configuring the portal, so just wondered if anyone else has come across this issue, or if there is some sort of setting to change number being displayed at one time, I could tweak it? Many Thanks Adam

Hello all, We have a particular service in our service portfolio that has a lot of catalogue items in it, due to the complex requirements of the service and the various different level of Service Level Agreements and priorities for these catalogue items. I needed to put one live this week, which has brought some areas of the business above 30. As we tailor our catalogue to visibility of catalogue items to what they consume by each business area department, meaning they get a tailored portal with catalogue items that are relevant to where they sit in the business. It has come to light that although I've made this live and triple checked the visibility, they can not see the item, however I could but because where I sit in the business I need to be subscribed to a lot fewer catalogue items under that particular service. I initially thought this was likely to be a browser cache issue, however I've had reports from multiple members and they can't see the item. However if you search for it, it does appear but it is not listed when browsing through the service. I've then decided to include myself into all of the catalogue items the business area that reports the issue in, and I'm able to fully mimic the issue. Has anyone else come across this, and is there a limit, that's set somewhere in the configuration of the employee portal which needs increasing? Or is this a fault the requires support to investigate? Many Thanks Adam

Thanks @Steve Giller, much appreciated.

Hi all, As we're using Intune for our mobile device management, and part of the beauty of using such a tool is it makes Bring Your Own Device a very viable option. From an asset billing perspective we'd like to in the Financial Information Acq. method have an option in there for personal. This would make it easy to see whether this is a personal owned device and the asset needs to be retained by the user when leaving the company or use the purchased option, if the company had purchased that mobile device. I'm sure other customers would also benefit from having this option, as BYOD becomes more readily available, with O365 and mobile device management tools such as intune allowing BYOD to be a much more palatable option to businesses and customers alike. Many Thanks Adam

Hi @Berto2002, We have done this, we initially had one domain which was IT. But now we've onboarded our Facilities team and our Operational Technology team, the latter we're in the midst of at present, this is a challenge we faced. We set the services in the portfolio to their corresponding domain. You will need to include the different types of service domain in your BPMs so that when it comes to reporting you can accurately report the data, of IT and HR. We used a custom field, I think Custom Field L to separate reporting. Our Employee Portal home page looks as follows: It is then possible to click on the links and of either IT operations and Facilities and then direct your customers to that location. Again I believe it is possible to set visibility of the above until you're ready in regards to employee portal. So you'd have a link similar to this: live.hornbill.com/instancename/internal/catalog/nameofdomain It took us a little while separating out our different service domains data and believe we are getting there. Certainly some recent changes to Hornbill, have made this a little easier now than when we first attempted this. I hope this information helps. Cheers Adam

Thanks @Berto2002 for sharing how you have yours configured, that's incredibly helpful and gives me potential to explore a different avenue. Just to provide some additional background information with our change process, is that the change builder raises, it and then we have a technical peer reviewer, before coming into change management, then providing we as change managers believe the change is appropriate and not conflicting with another change in the same window it progressed to CAB. Our CAB members are largely from a business stakeholder/ custodian background, therefore we need that technical peer reviewer step to help assure the level of technical detail, proposed in the change. In some cases if the change is a minor impact, it will not require CAB approval, and therefore the technical peer review step has even greater importance. The technical peer reviewer has the potential to be any member of staff within our IT department, and therefore it's been somewhat of a challenge to come up with a suitable role. I will certainly give what you're saying some thought regarding an authorisation assignee role. Thanks again Adam

Hi all, I'm trying to make some minor enhancement to our technical peer review change process, one of those is the ability to clear the previous tech peer reviewer's details should an incorrect technical peer reviewer be selected. I would of thought through the tentative option getting the last authorisation details, and then using a node to clear the previous authorisation would work, however when going back through the flow, somewhere the previous details are being retained and automatically picked back up when the workflow goes back round. I've included a screenshot of our BPM. Does anyone have any ideas on how I can overcome this? Many Thanks Adam

Just wondered if there had been any more news on this one from Hornbill? Many Thanks.

Thanks @Berto2002 I can see that would cause an issue in that scenario, we don't tend to use those components but it's certainly something I will double check. Unfortunately project work has pushed this down the list of priorities for me to complete this month. But would hope to pick this back up in July, and I'll certainly keep those points in mind.

Thanks Frank. Whilst not ideal, I didn't realise you could have more than one node with one user configured in each. I do think for us at least this will be a fairly static one off list. But I can see where you are coming from in regards to the admin overhead it would create, if that wasn't the case. Thanks for this I will give this a try once I have the identified list. Many Thanks Adam

Hi all, I've seem to hit a bit of a stumbling block, on how you add multiple connections into a bpm node. At this point I don't know exactly who they will be, but it will be a group of circa 20 connections at the basic user level that I need to include a part of a Service Request (SR Ticket type) The wiki seems to indicate that this is done through the simple list function using Simple list, but it's not clear where or how you edit this since the new UI change. The Config inside the bpm only allows one coworker but you can remove multiple connections, but only add a connection. Has anyone managed to get this working with multiple connections of various license type? Many Thanks Adam

Plus one for us this did impact us.

Thanks James for your response on this. I believe this unlikely to cause us any real problems then, but I think I will do a couple of services as a test, before implementing on all. Thanks again. Adam

Hi all, We're looking at ways to optimise and enhance the experience of logging tickets through both employee portal and the agent portal in Service Manager. Our service headings have to remain quite business wordy, due to the nature and complexity of the services that under pin our catalogue items. I've now got the approval to put the change I'm proposing in place, but before I do this are there any issues with changing the names, what happens to pre-existing tickets etc? An example is we're moving from Mobile Communications to Mobile Communications e.g (Android) (iOS). Any advice before I plan this change would be most helpful. Kind Regards Adam