Berto2002
-
Posts
1,303 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Enhancement Requests
Posts posted by Berto2002
-
-
I will refrain from using the word 'easy' in future; but in this context the requirement should be seen as 'easy' as it's well-established and in use where shown.
-
At present, Routing Rule Templates cannot raise Change Requests.
Use-case: due to the fact I cannot use Service Manager to schedule to log Requests on the 2nd Tuesday of the month (see other post asking for new scheduling options to allow this), I planned to use a trigger from an external script - where we can detect such variable dates - to send in an email which would be picked-up by inbound routing rules and pushed to the routing rule template to log a patching change request for Microsoft servers. But I find no option to log a Change Request. As a workaround I need to log a Service Request into a mini Workflow which then logs the Change Request and closes itself down.
Can't see why there shouldn't be an option to log a Change Request from a Routing Rule Template so requesting it please.
-
Microsoft release Windows Updates (usually) on 2nd Tuesday of the month. There's no way to schedule this kind of recurrence in the Service Manager tool; we can only set specific numbered days of the month. As most people will be running Windows and many organisations use similar scheduling cycles for all sorts of reasons, I would like to suggest HB enhance the scheduling system (as used in Scheduled Requests and Reports) so we can specify such dates. The standard for this is in Outlook and should be easy to replicate:
Use case: allow us to align the production of reports or scheduling of requests to organisation-based deadlines using the same facilities.
-
@Miro I have sent you another ICF form in which we are having this issue also.
It completes fields as it goes but then stops and only populates the last 4 in the summary box when the very last ICF field is entered.
-
Hi Steve. I'm referring to Tuesday morning on our 'install date'. However, we will monitor this over the next few days. We definitely had one such case on Weds.
-
But before today (i.e. before the release), comments from the Customer would have taken the Request off hold.
Anyone else seen this?
-
@Steve Giller are you able to point me to the area of documentation where I might find details of the visibility, please?
I was hoping to see something but I am not sure what I am looking for.
A search for "visibility" brings up a bunch of platform technical responses like this:
Method - activity::activityPostCommentImage (hornbill.com) which has a "visibility" row entry stating "default=undefined
Method - activity::postMessage (hornbill.com) which has a row entry stating "default=following"
I am trying to find where it will be listed how these app settings affect things:
guest.ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.operation.defaultVisibility.schedule
guest.ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.operation.defaultVisibility.linkDocument
guest.ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.operation.defaultVisibility.link
guest.ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.operation.defaultVisibility.hold
guest.ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.operation.defaultVisibility.authorisers
guest.ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.operation.defaultVisibility.assign
guest.ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.operation.defaultVisibility.assets
guest.ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.operation.defaultVisibility
guest.ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.operation.defaultVisibility.escalate
guest.ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.operation.defaultVisibility.updateI am also trying to find out what the defaults are for each type of node if they are left as "Ignore".
-
I uploaded a 1.6Mb file as profile picture. No warnings or anything but it resulted in removing my profile pic so just had a grey blob.
Tried again with smaller file of 350Kb and it worked ok
So assume there's a limit and this should be published on the screen to avoid issues:
-
From a fellow user perspective it's upsetting our customers and messing with our workflow so I have asked Hornbill Customer Escalations to prioritise it. Hornbill noted on Tuesday 24th, "Our developers are aware that the fix in the recent Service Manager release does not appear to have been effective. They are looking into a solution and once I know more I will of course pass on the next steps".
-
1
-
-
-
We often hear from our line managers or other connections (Basic Users) that they want to be kept updated on a Request.
Is there any way they can be notified either through options or if anyone has found a way of capturing Customer or Analyst updates have having them pinged-out?
-
+1 for this.
I would like to see us able to add Organisation Groups as Connections which would result in all the members of that Org Group being able to act as Connections.
Use cases:
- Secretarial Pool supporting multiple execs and all need to be connections in case asked by any of them to look into their IT tickets
- Councillor Support Team is a virtual team of people we have as an Org Group (sync'd from O365 groups) doing as above for Councillors
-
@will.good you could do something with your Workflows.
- Imagine you have Custom fields A and B added to your Details Form for Service X, you can set them to be only visible when populated
- You disable the Edit of the Details section for relevant Workflows and, instead, the Workflow adds a Human Task for your analysts to update the relevant information
- Your BPM can detect which catalog item the Request was created through and divert the text entered in the Human Task to the correct field in the Details section (A or B )
- The appropriate field shows in the details section as it's now populated
- Your Human Task can be on a loop and always re-present itself after it's been used so further updates can be made (overwrite or append in each case) until a second outcome button of "no more updates" is used
Because Workflow has the ability to lock or unlock the Details section you could set-up two Custom Buttons that run Autotasks to Lock / Unlock the Details section. Trusted users who know to select the correct fields for that type could be given that ability to edit directly and would not see the Human Task version above (Workflow could find them as the Owner and not present the Human Tasks).
Just ideas in case useful.
I would NOT want the forms to be customisable per cat item; it's bad enough with 100 services having to manually reconfigure them one by one for 100 services let alone 500 cat items!
-
We are interested in SLA/OLA in relation to Suppliers so we can better access support and set expectations with customers and analysts. At a high level we would like to be able to:
- 'Assign' a Request to a Supplier Contract. Perhaps this is a new collapsible section in the Request where the Contract is linked (via a lookup of the Supplier)
-
The Contract records would have fields for agreed operational performance (which may have to be freeform due to the infinite variations possible) containing relevant information such as:
- Supported Hours/Days/Times
- Response/Resolution times
- Contact / call logging details
- Pre-requisite information the supplier needs us to give
- The people involved such as our contract owner and their contract owner
- Escalation information
- Have the above properties of that Contract exposed in the UI at the point of linking/assignment with the usual visibility options for team/customer, etc. The aim would be that it's clear how to get support and what to tell the customer about how it progresses
- A tie-in in the sub-status that allows us to state whether the Request is or is not currently dependent on the Supplier (Contract). E.g. Request would be "In Progress (Supplier)" or "In Progress (Internal)"
A future development of this would be to codify some of those fields (the most obvious being the supported hours and priorities) so some measurements of supplier/contract performance could be gleaned.
-
1
-
On 20/10/2023 at 16:07, James Ainsworth said:
are you adding them as a Connection or a Member
Connections. They are Basic Users. The use case is to allow a select pool of (secretarial) people to access Requests that are raised by senior members of staff; so when the exec says, "please sort that out for me" they can read and interact with the request.
-
All the new custom fields are there.
There is no custom field 6 tho... the sixth field is and always has been Custom field F (A - T are 1-20) which is why the numbered ones start at 21.
-
1
-
-
@Met I stripped the report back and started again and I can now get a result with this:
And it shows the obj ref urn data.
I then applied filters and got my list of requests without tasks.
Thanks for your help. I will now try to build back in the other data columns I wanted.
Rob
-
On 19/10/2023 at 10:55, Met said:
You should use a LEFT JOIN to pull all rows from the h_itsm_requests table and only matching rows from the h_sys_tasks table. You could then look at where h_sys_tasks.h_obj_ref_urn is NULL. This should give you a list of requests which have never had a task associated with them.
@Met very kind of you to suggest this but my logic circuits don't compute what you've suggested...
Your first sentence seems to say "return all Requests linked to Tasks" but the second sentence (the filter) seems to say, "and filter out all the Requests linked to Tasks" (which will be 100% of rows found in the first part).
I have 4 tables but the link to the h_buz_activities and h_sys_accounts is just to link additional columns of data so I think what I have is Requests linked to Tasks with the Left Join you suggested.
Buz to Requests:
Requests to Accounts:
Requests to Tasks:
And has some basic filters including the one I think you suggested.
The report runs for quite a time but returns no rows.
If you can help further it would be much appreciated.
Rob
-
I accept that's an idea that is similar but the important parts are:
- It's visible before opening the task
- It expires 'automatically' so we don't have to plan to go back to every node and take off the formatting
-
Summary: I would like my analysts (Full Users) to be able to quickly identify newly added or edited Human Task nodes so they are drawn to pay attention to them.
We operate quite heavily on the principle of continual service improvement and iterative development of our workflows. We very often tweak the language in human task or add or remove step. We inform the analysts in comms or short update videos but in the heat of the moment when the analysts are running through workflows there is nothing to remind them when they hit one of those small areas that we've recently changed and sometimes that creates delay or confusion or errors. They are often running on auto-pilot and need a little hint to think at certain places.
I'd very much like the ability to flag a human task node as having been recently edited so that it appears as a different colour to the analyst when they reach that stage of the workflow.
How I see this working:
- As the designer of the workflow, I would simply like a box on the human task that I can tick to flag this as a new or altered human task node
- All the user interface needs to do is display that Human Task (activity) in a slightly highlighted colour. This will have the effect of alerting the analyst to pay particular attention when they reach one of these nodes to remind themselves of the change
- I envisage that any such flag would always be temporary and will automatically disable after either a defined period or the admin has a date selector (like expiry). That way the UI only highlights if the fixed date is in the future.
I see this is a very easy thing to implement because it is non-functional; just a flag and the UI.
Thinking ahead, it raises other possibilities such as the ability to colour-code tasks according to their function or importance. E.g. Asset handling tasks could be green highlight, account management red, etc; enabling analysts to see at a glance the type of work to be done.
I imagine this sort of thing:
And it would look like this when opening the task:
Here are two options as to how it might look to the workflow designer. 1) a simple tick box which activates a 4 week timer each time the node is edited and 2) setting a specific day/month/year for the highlighting to expire (my favoured option)
I would welcome any comment or support for this analyst/usability/change focused suggestion.
-
Hornbill did get back to me yesterday but implied it was due to a string util giving a blank value but I explained that was not the case and gave the evidence so now hoping for a new response.
-
1
-
-
I would like a list of Active Requests where the required work by analysts is not driven by Tasks. That means knowing all Requests where all tasks have been completed or no tasks ever have been added.
In my mind I believe this means I need a report which includes data from Tasks because you can't tell from the Request table if a Request has tasks or what status they are.
But I don't think this works:
- If I link Requests to Tasks (e.g. as per below that we have in another report), then the report will naturally always exclude all Requests that have no Tasks at all
- If I don't link Requests to Tasks, I cannot at all determine if a Request has or had a task and what its status is
I am trying to think through how I can get a complete list of Active Requests (period) and the task Title and Details only appears for those that do have tasks (with multirows if more than one task); where there are no tasks or only completed tasks, we see no task data.
So I cannot see a way to get my desired outcome: Requests where all tasks have been completed or no tasks ever have been added.
Any ideas please?
-
I have chased this with Customer Success. You still getting this @AKJ?
-
+1 for this but I acknowledge this would come down to having a firm requirement.
For us it's something like:
- A permission that allow FAQ, Bulletins and service status which we can give to service desk and triage teams
- Allow the defined Service Owner to edit all other fields (SLA, Assets, Docs, etc) except Config (read only)
- Require an admin-level permission (Service Manager-level configuration) before being able to alter anything in the Config section (cat items etc)
This is because:
- triage and service desk need to keep our customers updated on services
- the service owner is responsible for aspects of their service but they are not responsible for forms and workflows and could mess things up badly by altering things in config
- only trained ICF/BPM admins should be able to mess with Config to keep the risk down
-
1
CR spawned from SR not picking-up Workflow, not reporting the RequestID and not accepting Change Type
in Service Manager
Posted
Can anyone help with this mystery, please?
Because we can't log a CR from Routing Rule Templates, I intend to log a SR and have an SR Workflow create a CR and then close. It nearly works; I get the CR but we have 3 important issues. I want to rule out my oversight first, then ask if there is something specifically blocking SRs raising CRs; before moving on to suggesting a defect.
First issue is that the new CR is not picking-up the Workflow.
Create node is this:
The Service Catalog item under Change for Network & Infrastructure Support is:
And that Workflow is active:
The CR gets created but has no Workflow:
I first tried under ServiceDesk Basic User (a Subscriber to the Service) and got the error. I than tried as me (Full User) and full subscriber and still got the error so ruled-out the user being the issue:
Interesting Observations:
The "Raised By" is THIS:
which is this when clicked:
Second issue is that the node that is in workflow to update the timeline with the new requestID (as diagnostics) is reporting no value, despite the "outcome" variable reporting success (so the overall flowcode reference works to refer to the node that spawned the CR):
The node to update the timeline has this config and the red and green match the above (but for the last bit obvs):
And the node that creates the CR has the following outcomes which match the above:
The Third issue is that, despite the node to create the Change Request stating to set the CR type to "Standard" (see first screenshot), the spawned CR has no Change Type set:
Of course, I need workflow and I need a Change Type for this to work.
Any ideas please?
Thanks in advance.