AlexOnTheHill

My colleague has been set to archived.

Hello, I have encountered a problem recently where a large number of reports all failed to run and the cause was that a colleague (and report owner) recently retired, putting all the scheduled reports into a failed status. I have asked that the owner be updated and I have been advised that the only way to do this is is to copy them individually. I can do this however I think that it would be far better if it were possible to manage report ownership in bulk within the portal. I have appx 70 reports to copy, correct and reschedule individually, I am certain there will be accounts running hundreds, if not thousands of reports and the time lost rectifying the problems their report owners departure would cause would make it well worth adding this feature. Many thanks

So where we pick a closure category to initiate an action in the business process there is no reliable way to transpose that? Is there a better solution to this? Could we set an option so that at resolution an agent has the option to notify an additional party? Our test process has one template for the user and another template for a team who do not use Hornbill, capturing all information and asking them to make contact with the user. The problem is that if this relies on one closure category then all business processes will need this update so that closure category can trigger the updated action and that looks to be a very labour intensive process without an alternative solution.

Would it be possible to tweak the means people assign to teams? We often are asked to assign to a specific person but best practice is to assign to the team which that person belongs to. Currently, we can look that co-worker up and see the teams they belong to and assign the call to that team It would be useful if when selecting a co-worker rather than team that the list of available teams then is filtered by the list of teams that co-worker belongs to. That way the agent can assign the call to that co-workers team without breaking out into another tab/browser. I hope this makes sense Many thanks

Thank you for the update. You're quite right, the preview does have the updated login appearance. I'm going to let our team know we can work on replacing the login background now.

I understand that not all business processes are the same but the aspect of the Business Process which we are looking to change does appear to be standard across our Business Processes. Do you have any recommendations?

Thank you I have checked using incognito mode and a different browser and the button is still covered up when I go to live.hornbill.com

I'm looking forward to seeing this on live.hornbill.com, hope it's still on the cards

Thank you James

I was wondering if it would be possible to enhance the filtering so that in addition to the filter you could colour code results that match additional criteria? Say, for example, your filter was set to see incidents and requests, assigned to the access team that are in an open or new status. It would be nice if you could then add a highlight for specific criteria that you could define in your view, for example, requests or incidents that have not had a response in 4 hours, those that are set with a high or major priority. I am aware you can define views for those specific types of calls and that the priority already has its own colour coded column but I think it would be useful to add colour/font highlighting to an existing view. There may be a particular type of call that would need to be identified urgently so adding a form of highlight to them using filter options would be helpful. I am currently looking for call summaries that begin [SP] and have set up a separate view to filter calls that contain \[SP\] but I would much rather highlight them in my request list so I don't need to flick between views. I hope this makes sense.

Hello, We have made a decision to implement a closure category which would link to a decision in the business process to email a specific team. The process itself works wonderfully, the challenge we have is that using the closure category would only work if the user logged the call via a catalogue item that utilised the business process with that automation built into it. What we would like to do is implement this across our BPs and wondered whether there is a better way to do this than updating each of our BPs manually. In addition, if this becomes beneficial to the business then other departments may ask for the same functionality and so we may need to make further bulk updates in the future. Is there a means to apply this change across multiple business processes or do you have a recommendation to do this more efficiently? Many thanks!

Did this turn out to be a bug?

Thank you for the advice @Mary @James Ainsworth I certainly see the benefit of using the advanced search commands to help reduce the number of results and I will promote them to our users. In a meeting yesterday a colleague pointed out that a search they ran returned over 10 pages of results and none of the first few pages were from this year. I pointed out that we can add conditions to the search and the feedback was that agents performing the search may not know the best terms to add to the search to return the best results. For example, they may not know which team the call was raised to, who the customer was, who the owner was but they had a good idea when the call was and the global requests search did not allow them to specify a date range nor the ability to filter or sort the results by date. In this example I agree the advanced search options help, I still think there is still a real user benefit to result filtering and sorting.

Good afternoon, In the process of asking teams for potential improvements a number of our staff have asked for an improvement to the results when searching for requests in Hornbill. Specifically, this relates to the global search box. When used, the results appear in what I presume is closest match order however the results can neither be sorted or filtered in the same way the requests list can. I am aware of the drop down that allows you to filter before submitting the search but it would be more useful to filter after the search. The requests lists filters also give us more options which I would expect in the requests search like date range (raised/updated/resolved/closed/reopened) Would it be possible to look at adding this type of functionality to the results? I have suggested our users turn to the requests list to search requests but I do feel the power of the request list search is lacking from the global request search.

Thank you, yes, only on the Admin Portal

@James Ainsworth @Steven Boardman Thank you so much for your help! I thoroughly expected to spend lots of time trying to figure it out, the example and the guidance to GetUserGroups was exactly what I needed.

I have noticed that when I set up data validation by regex that when I test it the error statement does not add any formatting. Formatting applied in self service: Formatting not applied in the progressive capture test: I'm not sure if this is by design, I think it would be more useful if it did apply the formatting though.

Here's the error

Thank you for the advice. I have set a decision to say if Organisation group 1-10 contains authorised requestor to perform the additional actions. I have tried Get User Groups and it requires the UserId which I have tried to obtain by using Get User Information however that Get User Groups doesn't see the UserId and fails. I have tried defining the UserId by the UserId variable but that still fails. I changed Get User Groups to Get Manager Details and that also requires the UserId and that worked (until the BP reached the Organisation group decision). I'm missing something here, I'm sure the finest tweak would get me to where I need to be .

Good afternoon, I am testing the ability to update a request with a flag to say that a request has come from an authorised requestor. I currently identify authorised requestors by Organisation membership. Updating a request isn't a problem, I can see how to add a flag to a summary or add to an external reference field however if I try to fetch Organisation details using the Hornbill Automation: Service Manager > Application > Organisation > Get Organisation Details I get a BPM failure "Xmlmc method invocation failed for BPM invocation node" I'm pretty sure I'm using the wrong option to fetch details however I cannot see Organisation membership when I look at Get User Details, Get User Custom Attributes, Get User Groups or Get User Manager Details. What details would you recommend fetching in order to branch decided on User Organisation membership? Your help would be appreciated

Good afternoon, I recently submitted a request to have the login prompt updated so that the Harry Hornbill logo no longer covered the login buttons. It appears that this has been done but only on the admin.hornbill.com website, not on live.hornbill.com. Would it be possible to update the live.hornbill.com login page? Also, when a monitor is put in portrait orientation the Harry Hornbill logo on the admin page is separated from the arrow pointing to the login button: This has been posted previously here but doesn't seem to have had a response in the last day. Your help is most appreciated

+1 here also I would like to be able to add a custom button to complete all activities associated with a request (specifically, a change). Our reason for this would be that our change process notifies key decision makers and awaits their approval. If our change manager hosts a meeting and gains agreement from the key decision makers they would like the ability to click a button to progress the change. I can create a button easily enough and make it visible for changes only but cannot see how an autotask can close the open tasks.

I have noticed that the login for admin.hornbill.com has the updated appearance, is it possible to also do this for live.hornbill.com? I also noticed that depending on the orientation of the screen the box becomes disconnected from the arrow:

I apologise for how basic a query this is. While looking at our business processes I have noticed that with our non standard changes a due date is being added to the activities which is set to be completed in 48 hours. If I were to change this to 2 days is that 2 working days? If it is two working days does that account for Bank Holidays? I have tried looking in the Wiki and not put my finger on the answer to this one. The concern we have is that changes may be submitted on a Friday and not seen until the Monday by which time 48 hours will have passed so defining working days would be preferable. Many thanks

That is wonderful! Thank you for the update, much more user friendly. I haven't seen this come through just yet.