AlexOnTheHill

Our process is to automate the creation of users but on the odd occasion I need to fix a failed user creation and that normally involves me creating one manually. This is a useful alternative to the method I currently use, thank you. I still think if you are copying roles from a user that the user you are copying to should be excluded from the list though. Many thanks

Hello, I have been using the copy roles from user feature since it was added to Hornbill and noticed that if I am creating a new user record that I am suggested the new user when copying the roles from an existing user. Is there any way this feature can be amended slightly to exclude the current user you are copying roles to from the list you are copying the roles to? Not a big change but it seems illogical to be able to select the same user for both, also, as I am often creating a user account for the same user with a new employee number and moving across the requests I am far more likely to see the same name twice and have to guess which is the correct one. I think it might be possible to tell which is the correct one if the drop down box didn't cut off the full user details but it makes more sense to exclude the existing user from the list. I hope this makes sense Many thanks

The decision node looks for the task outcome "information complete" here: Here is the branch for the Information complete outcome:

@Steve Giller thank you for the suggestion of locking the assignment, I created a test process which team A have tested and it seems to achieve what I was looking for. This locks the assignment, creates the activity and then has a decision node which either sees the activity completed and unlocks the assignment or on no match returns to the previous step. That covers the problem of activities assigned to Team A still being present when assigned to Team B. Thank you also for pointing out the Advanced Request Task Completer right, I have created a custom role with that right and added a key user to it. I expect to test this in the next week so fingers crossed both of these solutions are going to help with the issues we have with activities presently.

You are quite right, there is a valid reason for the activity. It is intended to ensure that Team A complete information gathering and quality checking before assigning to Team B. Sadly, we find that the activities are often left incomplete and the re-assignment continues. Team B often find themselves dealing with a heavy workload and have to reach out to Team A to ask that the activity be closed which delays the resolution. There is an element of education and I have spoken with Team A a number of times but I was wondering if there is a better solution here.

Hello, There have been a number of instances where a request logged to team A also has an activity assigned to it for completion by team A and when assigning to team B that request cannot be closed without team A completing it. This has resulted in a few queries to be fired back and forth between departments and is less than ideal. What would be the best way to prevent this from happening? Can I create a role that allows any team member to complete activities assigned to other teams? Can I make whichever team a request is logged to the new owner of the activity once a request is reassigned? I was thinking that I might create a custom button that could complete all activities against a ticket however our change process creates multiple activities during the authorisation process and I'd be keen to avoid all of those being closed. At the same time, our change manager does sometimes need to close multiple activities in a change where multiple teams are tasked to approve/reject/question a change so would a specific role help here? Many thanks

This is brilliant, thank you! I'm tweaking the report as I speak and it looks exactly what I was looking for. It seems the answer was in the join all along

Do you happen to know whether it is possible to report on requests that have been logged that do not have a linked asset ID? I know how to report to see which asset IDs are most frequently used however we also need to report on requests missing the linked asset so we know whether training is required or if the asset needs to be created. Many thanks

This morning I do not see the error message however if I reach any question which has an onward branch without a 'no match' branch I have found that if you click anywhere other than one of the options the error message returns.

I have been advised that a patch has been applied that should fix this however the problem has changed rather than been resolved. Now I no longer see the invalid error message if I go to a mandatory question without an option highlighted but if I click anywhere other than one of the options the error returns. The only instance where this would be a valid error would be if there is a non mandatory question with no 'no match' branch defined and the user were to click next. A mandatory question should flag to the user that they must select an answer rather than erroneously telling the user the system has not been configured incorrectly.

Hello, I have received calls from colleagues describing problems raising requests in self service today, stating that they are seeing an error: The Intelligent Capture flow has reached a point that does not have any forward path. This generally means the Intelligent Capture flow is incorrectly configured and needs to be corrected. Please contact your Hornbill administrator who will be able to resolve this issue. I have looked at the affected capture and it is not in error. The capture has a mandatory question followed by a list of options and each option has its corresponding branch where follow up questions are asked. The capture does not have a no match option which would be redundant as the list of options are known and all included in their own branches. I have checked the Wiki and can find nowhere that states that a no match branch is mandatory: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php?title=Progressive_Capture_Designer https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php?title=Custom_Expression_Builder Furthermore, the intelligent capture page shows no error or warning indicating that any such error should occur for the users. It seems that self service has been changed to warn of problems if the user were to click next, when a question is mandatory and is unanswered the next button is absent so there is no need to show an error. If the question had not been mandatory then it would be correct to show an error message but only after clicking next, not before. Your help is appreciated. Kind regards Alex

In the business process I think you would need to add a Hornbill automation to Get Request Details Among those details is the assigned team Add a decision node and then branch off using assigned team equals [team name] Then subsequent to that you can add your Hornbill automation node for sending the email then route the branch back to the no match branch Note: the Get Request Details must be after the point the request is assigned to the team I hope that helps

Hello, We have a shared instance between two domains and in order to apply the charge for the overage we need to be able to see which of the domains contribute most toward the increased data usage. We are currently looking to on-board a third domain to the instance also which will have a direct effect on our usage. Currently we can see the data usage but only as a whole, not per domain. Would it be possible to implement a means by which we are able to see this? Many thanks Alex

Thank you, a custom button hadn't occurred to me and yes, it could be raised to a secondary team (no priority change) at any point. The downside of the custom button would be that it would need to be selected manually but we will test and see how we get on, thank you!

Thank you Steve, This is a shared mailbox external to Hornbill I can see how I can send an email to an external address but only to the primary team, not for the limited number of calls escalated to a secondary team.

Hello, I was wondering if there is a way to ensure that requests raised to a team notify both the user and that team's mailbox? My initial interpretation of this was that once the call is raised I can add an email notification node to the business process or instruct the team to use notification settings to select email notification when a request is logged to the team but what they are looking for is that the members of the team and their team mailbox to be notified at the same time. This team do not receive requests through the business process as they are a secondary support team and will not want notification of calls which will not be escalated to them. They have been instructed to set team assignment email notifications but specifically want the notifications to go to the team mailbox. I guess it's possible to create a dummy account using the team email address and add it to the team but we do not create generic accounts, seems more of a fudge than a solution. Any help would be appreciated Thanks in advance Alex

Hello, I noticed recently that if you define an icon for a custom button in Service Manager there is no option to remove it, only to change it. The only way to remove the icon is to completely delete the button and start again which is an inefficient solution. This seemed to me to be a fault but apparently this is by design. It would be nice if the custom button could be developed further, I recently had a request to be able to put fixed values into a custom field and to do that through a button. I would prefer if the button then allowed me to select among those fixed values rather than having to create 4 buttons for each respective value. This would be particularly useful as the space available for buttons is limited. Many thanks.

This impacted us also and our service was restored successfully

I have been working on our change process and have spotted a few instances where the Business Process has failed due to requestors submitting a change to complete before the change is initiated. We ask for when the work is intended to be started and when it is to be completed by and occasionally people select the same day and mistakenly think that midnight is the end of the day, rather than the start. The business process then creates a task for the person processing that change with a start and end date determined by those dates initially selected so when an end date is less than the start date the process fails. Is it possible to add validation to a date to say must be greater than a previously selected date? Perhaps I am going about things the wrong way, if there is a better suggestion I am keen to hear it! Many thanks

Hello, I'm not sure whether reporting is currently able to capture this information, I have been looking through the filters but not seen something that matches this requirement. I'm looking to report on calls that are not resolved by the first assigned team. Is that possible with the current filters? Is there a way to achieve this? Ideally, we would like to be able to see the calls assigned to frontline then the proportion of those calls which are resolved by all teams to see which proportion are resolved frontline. I can see filters like reopened count but not something that allows me to say the initial team does not equal the resolved team. I hope this makes sense Many thanks

Our users are now able to send emails, thank you.

Sadly after further testing more people are saying they cannot assign calls. I have confirmed they have done a force refresh. I have asked that they try to assign elsewhere then assign back to themselves but have not had any success. I think the issue is ongoing.

After assigning to a different team I was then able to assign to myself/colleagues/another team. Colleagues are now reporting things appear to be ok.

After a force refresh I am still seeing this issue, testing continues with colleagues

We are also experiencing the exact same issue. Our temporary workaround has been to assign to someone else then reassign back to yourself however that seems to only work within the same team. I have tried this with assigning to a different team and get "cannot assign to same team/analyst"