Jump to content

Berto2002

Hornbill Users
  • Posts

    1,267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Posts posted by Berto2002

  1. That is one of the challenges we all face. The system doesn't have automated diverts in place. We are a small team and we rely on either getting it right or the change coordinator asking the change manager to change the approver manually on the task; which we do about one every 2 weeks

    • Like 1
  2. You may have a challenge putting nested authorisations in parallel working. There is an undocumented limitation in Service Manager that some nodes don't work and are unsupported in parallel streams.

    Our approach to approval escalations is not to move the approval up the chain but to inform the authorisers line manager that the authoriser hasn't responded and ask them to give them a kick to get it done. To do that we use nodes to get the authoriser's line manager and email them:

    image.png.f15a1e7e9ae4ce14f2514795f2de7925.png

  3. This is the flow we use for what we call "offline" approvals for Change Records:

    image.thumb.png.b12a674e02715bb12bb0b3538b78dc0a.png

    You have a human task for the analyst (change manager for us) to define which approvers:

    image.png.46eade25c72eaf14412cd20c3c876e22.png

    And then, depending on the number selected, the parallel workflow selects the one route that is appropriate and that node distributes the approvals by a suitable percentage. Each variable comes from the change manager's selection (or we also have one or two hardcoded ones):

    image.thumb.png.d53354d579fdb4b92c601069fc4b3777.png

  4. Hi @Steve Giller, I can see how an incorrect format there would caus an issue.

    But the only way that field can be entered is using the 'UI wizard' by clicking the edit icon and it comes-up with this:

    [{"displayName":"Name Name","email":"NameName@domain.gov.uk","optional":"Required"}]

    If the format is incorrect it would suggest it's something Hornbill need to fix so the wizard outputs the correct format?

    image.png.2c0fbbe118099cfd6d36bfa93b724116.png

    image.thumb.png.7c2066a60e000fd222badf6cb4dcc446.png

  5. +1 for sure. But then Hornbill have already committed to an overhaul of the Service Portfolio so I hope this kind of requirement was catered for. If you alter the Design of the Custom Fields of the Service, the changes are replicated across all services so there is a precedent for this type of behaviour

  6. Bringing this up again as my analysts are still finding retired archived assets when raising changes and getting confused.

    @Steve Giller did this get assessed for inclusion please. Requirement is either filter to allow retired/archived assets to not be exposed for user/analyst use and or for the status/state to be exposed to allow them to see status/state.

    image.thumb.png.9d2a94f28d114eef3f04a5662b70c854.png

    Explanation I have to give to analysts: "Sorry folks, I can neither filter-out those retired/archived assets nor reveal their status/state on the view you see when linking. This is something I have asked Hornbill to implement but no news yet. You need to right click to open the asset to check the status/state if in doubt and then only link active current assets, please. I will update the Hornbill forum post each time it is reported to me to keep the issue visible."

     

×
×
  • Create New...