Berto2002
-
Posts
1,303 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Enhancement Requests
Posts posted by Berto2002
-
-
Hi, we noticed that the word-wrap is sub-optimal on the web page that external authorisers see. It looks messy and it's hard to read.
Please can you either prevent the splitting of words and justify (preference) nor split them with hyphens?
-
@James Ainsworth in one area, we have a single BP that processes output from multiple different PCFs. In that BP, I have an External Authorisation node in which I want to 'paste' the questions and answers gathered from the PCF that was used so that the approving person can see all the information relevant in the email (because the webpage they go to to give the authorisation does not display any of that). I cannot be prescriptive about exactly what PCF items to paste because they are variable and numerous.
Can I use a "generic" variable that 'pastes' all the questions and answers from whatever PCF was used? The two options are shown below but "outcome" seems a little generic and "Progressive Capture Answers" (which sounds perfect) has a bit warning on the help text that it's system only...
-
Hi James. We will look into this. It does indeed look like an enticing prospect to achieve what we want; assuming we can mail-enable our AD groups and get the email addresses sync'd in.
You quoted, "The organisation groups were not really designed for the use as an email distribution list". That may be the case but I suggest the Design has fallen short:
- OGs are used to provide access to the Services and Catalogue Items in the product
- OGs contain email addresses and Service Manager contains email capabilities
- Every IT team in the universe needs to communicate with it's user base about Incidents, Service Requests and Changes
- Every account manager only wants their users to receive communications relevant to their services
- Despite the advent of collaboration tools, most organisations still use email as the primary method to communicate with users
Everything is there ready, like roads that have not yet been connected. Imagine that new Customer itching to sign-up who asks "And I can email Subscribers to Services direct from Hornbill Service Manager as part of my business process, right?"
:-)
-
Ok Trevor thanks, will try that. Can I suggest a note in the Wiki markup page for that?
-
Hi @TrevorHarris. That didn't seem to work. It just added the markup...
-
We've started using the cards to display additional information from the BP (disabled sync and updating through workflow). But what we're finding is that the lack of formatting on the cards is making things look a bit messy with essential information being cut-off like the Start and End Times of the Change Window. See below. I'm seeking either 1) options for card size (per lane; I would make the forthcoming cards bigger than than those past) or 2) control over font size (I would just shrink from 14pt to 11pt) or 3) more 'intelligence' in handling this automatically (such as setting a max char limit on the card and flexing the size within that limit to ensure all information is shown).
-
Hi @Ehsan,
Your points are theoretically correct but idealised. The reality is that we (and most HB customers, I suspect) do not have all our processes nailed into the Product. In a fast-moving high-volume Service Desk/support environment we only have the broad-brush ones in place but most agents still need to use their personal experience, training and a broad set of tools to find what is causing something and to fix it. In these cases, all we can do in Service Manager is to present the Agent with a generic set of answers the Customer has answered about, say, laptop errors. But there could be a 1000 error codes in our estate and we don't know the exact questions to ask for them all and the admin of configuring 100 PCFs would not be manageable. So, we need to equip our teams with fast, agile methods they can use to try to structure information capture and dissemination between them, Customers and Colleagues.
A few additional thoughts:
-
Asking for Information.
- Snippets are a way of piloting/trialling what questions we can ask of Customers as we start to form a view on a trend; before we invest in PCF/BP updates
- Snippets can be used when we have adverse circumstances and need to provide certain responses for a limited period such as a basic paragraph explaining to the Customers of 50 Incidents that the Sky ISP is down
- Snippets can professionalise and standardise the default Sdesk responses by providing a template of fields to complete
-
Diagnosis steps.
- My technical teams want to know that the SDesk have done a few basic triage steps before assigning. SDesk could use Snippets to build-up templates and standard responses for that which can be entered at the point of assigning
- Snippets can be used to make statements about work the team have done when we have a set of steps needing doing but where Service Manager is too regimented. For example, we have 20 things we can do to diagnose a PC. The engineer chooses one or two for that Customer and wants to update the request quickly that he's done them and just enter variables.
Also the three cases I listed were just examples so please do not get hung-up on them as the only use-cases.
Rob
-
Asking for Information.
-
@Steven Boardman. Hi. Can I put multiple criteria in one field separated by commas or semi-colons? For example, I have a button that I wan both the Service Desk and my apps triage team to use so I'd like to enter Team Name contains: "Service Desk; Apps Triage". I would also like the status to exclude Resolved and Closed and I would like some buttons to appear on incidents and requests but not changes. I think the way to do this is to duplicate the buttons for each set of conditions but with 3 conditions I end-up with with 9 buttons to achieve the same thing, changing just one of the filters each time. Perhaps another update to the Wiki? Custom Buttons - Hornbill and enhancement to improve the filtering for AND/OR conditions.
-
I cannot see the Resolution Category (Closure Category) as part of the dynamic options:
-
I want to email all the users of a given Application from Hornbill. We have set-up our AD so the Organisation Group syncs into Hornbill daily; giving us all the users and, of course, their email address. An example OG is "Application X Users" and has 200 people in it. We use these groups to allocate the right people as Subscribers to each application so it's a kind of automated user admin. Makes total sense to want to email them from time to time, right?
I tried inputting the name of the Organisation Group into the External Email which is the closest obvious match to that requirement. The group itself is copied-over from a Variable:
But predictably, I suppose, the Product has simply inserted the name of the OG in to To: field and that doesn't work. I had hoped it would interpret that like an Exchange distribution list and send to all the members contained therein.
So what is the correct method of sending to the Organisation units' members, please?
I hope we don't hear it's impossible as I'd certainly come back and say that would be a great enhancement!
Thanks,
Rob
-
+1
Non-one has asked me this but I can understand it would be a very useful function. Most SDesks seem to have 1) generic "Agent" or 2) allow a first name only or 3) pseudonym/alias.
-
1
-
-
General:
The expression in User ID is:
&[global["flowcoderefs"]["getReqInformation"]["customFieldB"]]
What this does is ensure we are getting the information for the correct person. Our PCF asks if we are logging On Behalf of so one side of the flow adds the Customer who logged the Request to Custom B, the other side adds the other name they gave to Custom B and then Custom B is what we look-up fo rthe VIP choice
I do not know how OGs work but the User was only in four OGs and there are 7 OGs listed in the Expression. What is it in the background that decides that OG the VIP Group is? Will it be one of OG 1-4 because there are 4 of them or could it be that VIP was OG 8 and that was not listed in the Expression? I note that there are 10 OGs in total...
For my reference, the example Request is SR00016632 and the BPM ID is BPM20210907000317 for a Councillor.
-
@Mary the Organisation ID is just VIP, see below... so the use of OG == VIP is correct. This just leaves us the question now of why it is working sometimes and not others... so we are back to the question I originally raised.
-
@Mary Here is the example of where it recently worked with this set-up. Giving me an issue the feeling it's behaving erratically
- BPM20210819000024
...and with this Expression:
And with this User:
-
18 minutes ago, Mary said:
Please review the expression. You do not have an organisation called VIP, so Organisational Group One ==VIP will not return a match and neither will any of the other org groups. This is why the outcome is no match.
The expression should be Organisational Group One== VIP Users or Organisational Group One contains VIP Users
Mary, yes! I was thinking this myself. This set-up was put in place before I joined, in the project phase. And yet is seems to be working some times. I fully agree and I am going to test this. I wonder whether someone set-up a "VIP" Group at first and then renamed it. Would the flow be using the Group ID in the background still and thus making it continue to work?
-
35 minutes ago, Steve Giller said:
@Berto2002 Where are you pulling that output from? It doesn't appear to be in the format that I'd expect to see.
Hi Steve, this content is me pasting the log file output from VelocITy into a Teams chat. It rather nicely automatically put it in a nice table :-)
-
Hi Victor. OK but what you are telling me is that the Log File does not give me the reasons the workflow choice was made (i.e. which of the two expressions matched or why), only 1) there was no error and 2) the outcome. It seems there is room for improvement/enhancement in the detail of this log file. It would be better to clarify which expression was matched such as 1) "Expression [label for the Expression] matched: [true]" or 2) "No Match: [true]" or perhaps 3) "Tasks: Approved: [true]" to help diagnosis.
In this case, I consider that my Expression is faulty in some way so I can progress with this knowledge, thank you for clarifying.
-
We've had a flow do something unexpected: A Request for a VIP Customer should have had their ticket flagged as VIP but it didn't.
The "Expression matched: [true]" log implies to me that it should have gone the direction where the Expression is listed ("yes" in the flow below). But it actually went the direction of the "No Match" option.
Am I reading this incorrectly?
The expression is this: It's looking for a match of VIP in the Organisations:
And the User has this configured. This approach typically works.
-
+1 for this. My request would be to introduce the same kind of filtering options we have on the Request List; and be able to create Views and to share those views with others. My summary use cases are:
- My Business Partners (like account managers) want to see only those changes which will have downtime for their apps. So a view for them would search on a custom field with a downtime flag
- I want to have key Council meetings added as "Information CRs" so they can flag-up on the calendar and be filtered in or out; again, these could have a flag in the custom fields
- My IT teams want to be able to filter for CRs in a certain area of work. For example, check for networking changes or storage changes
-
1
-
Oh man! I cannot believe I didn't see that. That so makes sense. I feel stupid, again!
-
Try this:
- Make sure your sound is on
- Go to Manage Executed Processes
- Right click on any BPMID and open in new tab
- Now click to view that tab and you will here tap-tap-tap and see the sound icon:
I am using Edge Browser.
For weeks I've been thinking this was a problem with my PC or MS teams with random tapping!
Please Hornbill, tell us what this is for or can you help with why my local settings might be triggering this?! :-)
-
Here's an oddity. Why would the Schedule Change button be half the size/area of the Remove from Schedule button? Minor oversight on the UI changes?
-
Requirement: My Service Desk have asked for a column in the Request List view to show them the linked Requests for any given Request. An example case:
- In a Major or High Priority Incident with 50 Incidents logged to various Teams/Owners, to find quickly out which of them have already been linked to the MI master Incident and which have not; without having to open all 100 Requests that morning and clicking the Link feature to check.
A less useful requirement: If we cannot include this list, I thought even a flag of "Linked?" with a Yes/No would be a little bit useful; or perhaps a "number of Linked Requests" column?
Ideas: Is there a cunning way of a back-end process reacting to a Linked Request action by 'injecting' a RequestID to a given custom field on each Request that is Linked to another? And then the Request List could have the custom field column listed...
I guess someone will suggest a report but that's the the dynamic view that we're after; unless that report can be dynamically displayed at a linkable URL, for example?
Any thoughts appreciated
-
1
-
Enhancement Request: Catalog Item ID should be shown in the Service Portfolio. It's just a minor thing but useful for the dev backlog.
-
1
-
1
-
Enhancement? External Authorisations: we need a 'way out' before the expiry for certain cases
in Service Manager
Posted
We recently started using External Authorisations. But we've hit a snag in the reality of it's use. Sometimes, we send the request to the wrong person and they come back and say it's not them; or we get authorisation through another route. But our workflow is stuck with the 3-day expiry before it can moved-on by the agent. What does the Hornbill Design say about how to handle this scenario?
Solutions I suggest you might consider:
My Sdesk agent query I am responding to showing the example of the approval coming via teams and them not being able to proceed in workflow.