Jump to content


Hornbill Users
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

NickH's Achievements


Contributor (5/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges



  1. Morning all, We have a process in place whereby once our 3rd party supplier confirms an e.t.a of one of their engineers our Analysts create a manual activity (from a template) detailing the engineer details and due time, they then also add the activity to a lane on a board. They can easily see what engineer visits they have in play for the shift they're currently on, big improvement for us. Once the engineer has attended, the analyst completes the activity. Our assumption was the relevant card in the lane would clear once the activity was completed/'done', however all that happens is the status changes, but remains on board. Our analysts are having to manually clear down the cards. Is there something we're missing to streamline this? We did think of making use of the BPM somehow, but as the card has been manually created I'm guessing that's not an option? Thanks as always
  2. It turned out the issue was 2 users having the same e-mail address set against them, which understandably confused matters. Once unique e-mail address set, request updating from e-mail working correctly. Many thanks.
  3. Thanks @Paul Alexander - I don't *think* that's the issue, as at the moment we're still testing functionality and the e-mail is actually going to me, and I've not had the issue previously. But will put my HB hat on shortly and have a play. Appreciate the response.
  4. Thanks Victor, we're moving ahead with that approach. Something we've noticed, and maybe we've not quite understood the functionality, is when the e-mail is replied to, the reply isn't being automatically added to the time. Which I thought was standard if the e-mail had the request number in the subject line? We can see the e-mail response in the Hornbill mail box, so it's making it that far at least.
  5. We started investigating that route but hit some issues; am I right in thinking if we use this approach the e-mail will just send when the button is pressed, i.e. the analyst wont be given the option to add any finer details or information that might not be present from the earlier progressive capture stage or is in the details pane? The idea of the e-mail not having a form of error checking before it's fired off, could lead to issues. But perhaps we've not appreciated how this'll work? Thanks for your help so far
  6. @Victor - Manually is our expectation, we can't know at exactly which point in the Incident's lifecycle the e-mail will need to be sent (in some cases it might not be required at all). As such we've assumed the workflow wouldn't be a suitable route?
  7. Morning all, We have a requirement to e-mail an external hardware supplier when we require their field engineering support. The call from our POV exists in HB, all the data the external supplier requires is gathered from the progressive capture stage. To streamline activities for our service desk as much as possible, we're thinking of using an e-mail template to collate the information, but we're struggling to find a way of setting the 'To' and 'CC' fields to all the address (external and internal) that the e-mail needs to go to (these always stay the same). I'm hoping this is possible, would seem like an obvious requirement to us? Thanks Nick
  8. Afternoon all, Our Asset manager has put a requirement on me that under 'Software Information' they'd like a 'quantity' field. I.e. To record how many licenses of a given piece of software we have? I've had a good look around and don't think this is possible for me to do? It would have to be added in a future update? Thanks Nick
  9. Thanks for the update and your efforts on this James, much appreciated
  10. Good Morning, We have a requirement to provide a list of templated Change Requests, Standard changes that have been pre-authorised and are routine and repeatable. Much of the details will be pre-populated, with perhaps only a few fields requiring input, the change will also not go through the authorisation steps all other changes do. Can someone point me in the right direct on where to start investigating this, and if it's something anyone else does in their organisation? I've had a search and creating 'Catalog Items' for given services seems the most likely way forward, but would appreciate some input before we start going down the wrong path. Many thanks Nick
  11. Hi James, Apologies for the slow reply on this one, it dropped off the radar a bit. Currently we set the schedule once the change has been raised, so using the schedule button on the actions bar. I think setting during progressive capture might not work for us as it's conceivable the timings might not be known at the stage of raising the change, for instance we might raise the change to then step through it with our customer so we can come to agreed timings. Regards, Nick
  12. Can we request that it's made possible please?
  • Create New...