Berto2002

@James Ainsworth TOP TIP! I'm spreading that one to all our users. Just punching in that number without the prefix or zeros is just what is needed (BTW this should also be the case in the main search!)

Thank you, this works.

Hi, In a Business Process, I have a flow to Get Customer information and then add the Line Manager as a Connection: It uses this configuration: The variable is: "&[global["flowcoderefs"]["getCustomerInformation"]["managerName"]]" The user has a Line Manager set in their User Details: And yet, repeatedly and consistently (for all users), we get this result in a Request ticket after logging (a partial but disabled Connection): The system has clearly attempted to put a Line Manager there because the Actions drop-down gives the option to Remove. But our process breaks when trying to use that connection and treats it as if it is missing. Our subsequent flow requires the Line Manager Connection to seek approvals. We are currently having to ask all our agents (where approval is required) to remove this 'orphan' Line Manager connection and to manually add it back in whereafter it then appears as this; which then works on our ongoing process: Could you please help with why this is not working and what to do next? Is this a Premier Support issue I need to log? Thanks, Berto

The versioning system for BP is very good and such a useful rollback feature: And yet you don't have the same for Progressive Capture Forms. We have save and import and we have validate options but no versioning. As a result, we have to take a manual backup (save definition) before any changes else we have no rollback. Can I request this as added as a feature request?

When managing Executed Business Processes, I need to get to the Requests to see where they are at but the Ext Reference is not a hyperlink. As a result, I have to highlight the number, copy, change windows, find a Hornbill SM tab, paste and search. But this could all be so much easier if that was a hyperlink to directly open the Request. Minor enhancement but dramatic usability difference to those of us actively using the Executed Process view. Cheers.

Thank you, I shall try this out.

The Request Actions (bulk update) allows us to Update, Close or Cancel. However, when we do this, the Business Process is unaffected. In our case, we have a data issue and need to Close 1000+ Requests with this feature but each has a Business Process in Suspend state. All those BPMs will remain like that forever; orphaned (unless we manually close them down). To avoid orphaned Business Processes for a Close operation, I suggest you introduce a feature to in the Close option to also update the BPM. It could be as simple as “Also Cancel the Executed Business Process” or you could give options in a drop-down field to either Cancel the BPM or Complete it. I note that the Cancel option in Request Actions already does this but we do not want these Requests reported as Cancelled because the work was completed.

I want to include the Scheduled Start and End Date/Times in email notifications about Change; but I cannot see them in the Variable Picker. What am I missing? Are they called something else, are they missing for a reason, are they missing as an oversight?

Hi @James Ainsworth. I am simply after a report that lists the names and email addresses of all my Full Users (licenced) who can use Service Manager. I can then export and use in comms (now download option available in the users UI). Perhaps I should be able to run to include or exclude the Collaboration users. I really am struggling can you help please? I used the report above but that tells me all the groups and people in multiple groups appear multiple times. I then tried my own report just running on the h_sys_accounts table but a simple filter by User Type = Active gives no data. But in the UI, the type is specified as User

HI @Mary. Can you help with a further development of this idea please? I can see how the report suggested above enables a mapping between the Incident and the Problem. What we seek is a report that shows each team their list of TASKS against PROBLEMS but also showing their derivation in terms of Linked INCIDENTS of Priority Major. This is because what people remember is the Major Incident summary and number not the resulting Problem record summary and number. What I'm after is: Problem ID | Problem Summary | Linked (Major) Incident IDs | Linked (Major) Incident Summary | Task ID | Task Summmary | Task Title | Task Assignment Can this be configured? When I attempt to add the tasks and Relationships tables to the queries I get this error which I don't understand. tasks-linked-to-active-problems.report.txt

@David Paler thanks for validating. I wonder if others have the same issue? I would like to find a workaround as I want to make it very clear to my users what time the Change is scheduled for and at the moment, it's an unreliable date/time.

I have an issue with the date/time which appears in the Notices as being one hour different from the date/time our users specify. Since taking the screenshot I have successfully used the Date Formatter Cloud Automation to make the formatting better but this does not alter the time (zone). I believe the issue is caused by the system storing and using UTZ timezone in the background/DB and displaying that in Notices. However, wherever else in the system we display the Scheduled From and To date/time, it appears correctly for the user; except Notices. So it implies some kind of conversion that happens elsewhere in the GUI is not triggered for Notices. I understand from Support that the application is working as designed... So what I'm after is a workaround to force the Notice to use the Users GUI timezone (like the other times displayed) or to add an hour when we are in BST so I can get around this design limitation? A second example after the date format tidy-up.

Hi, I have noticed that if I alter the name of a Human Task that is referred to in an Expression after a Decision node, although the Expression continues to work, the old name of the Human Task is retained in the logic expression as displayed. I am not reporting the system not working but it is a confusing factor when examining logic Expressions and might I suggest this is addressed in future? Example: The Task was called "Confirm Offline Approvers" and is referred to from the 3 Approvers expression. The task was renamed to, "Change Manager: List Offline Approvers". but the logic expression retains the old name. After revision, the expression is as below: Since the system already caters for the integrity of the expression (thank goodness!) and continues to work it would be a logical step to also reflect this in an updated expression... Berto2002

We have an incomplete asset list in Hornbill SM but insist that Assets are added when required for Change; so we need a fast way for Users to add Assets but we need them reviewed so they can be finalised as necessary by someone in that area. A solution to this would be to have a very basic PCF that asks for the Name, Serial and Operational State; and for that to go through a workflow that creates the Asset - to the person can continue to build their RFC but assigns the Request to the Configuration Manager for review and update as necessary. I have checked the Hornbill Automation piece and Assets appears under Requests and allows to Add Customer Assets to the Request, to Get Asset Information or to Update the Properties on existing Assets (which is close because that's useful). It's so very nearly there but nothing for Add New Asset?! At the moment, we think we need to give access to everyone to be able to create raw Assets and that feels a little too open. Thanks for any advice.

Thank you, I will see what I can do with this suggestion. However, do you also see that there is no need for this failure to be the case if only Service Manager would acknowledge the Expired Task and act as if it had expired while created?

Hi both. Thank you, this is indeed what I was missing. I can now differentiate the dates and the Notice works. What I am not sure about yet - but will test - is, if I alter the Scheduled Dates, what I have to do to have the Notice pick-up the new dates in case of Scheduling alterations. However, this issue has thrown-up that I think our timezone was incorrectly implemented on our system. The times shown in the Notice are in GMT which means they are displaying one hour behind the real time in the UK! I have raised a Premier Support ticket for this since messing with timezones might have unintended consequences.

Hello @Steven Boardman, I have seen this topic which helps me understand how I must do a Cloud automation to get a properly formatted date: The principle works but I cannot see how to get two dates through this feature. I tried to use one Cloud Automation for each date: But they both output the SAME OUTCOME and I cannot edit it to be different for each case: So the latter over-writes the former and thus, my Notice looks like this where both of the times are the same: Can you please clarify how I go about getting the TWO dates as you did in your example above on this post ()? Many thanks in advance, Berto2002

Hi Mary. Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the task does appear in the Expired list, as below screenshot. So, the issue is that the Expiry of that task (presumably immediately after creation) has not triggered the BP to move on as it should (via the Decision with "No Match" route as above) to the "Email End of Change Window" node. However, this BP does move on in that manner when the Expiry occurs when the "Implementer: Start Implementation" task is already created. To cater for this case, I think I need to put-in additional node before that Task that checks the Expiry and if it's already passed, go straight to the Email node. Unless @Mary you know of another way to ensure this does not fail for this reason?

I have a Human Task that is set to expire when the Scheduled End Date of the Change Request is reached. The BP then should assess if no answer has been given and should move-on to the next step for a Change Manager review. This is a screenshot of the executed BP on a test Request which is awaiting the completion of the "Implementer: Start the Implementation": This is a shot of the CR itself which shows the BP did not create the Human Task it states it is waiting for (no Activities). So the CR is stuck and cannot move forward even though my BP provides a case for a Scheduled Date being passed (review and re-schedule). The issue appears to be created when the Scheduled End Date is already in the past. This seems to fail to create the Human Task rather then creating it and immediately expiring it. In short, the BP and the back-end of Service Manager app are not congruent. Although our teams are usually not silly enough to schedule something for the past - and we usually spot it in review - it is possible that it can happen and I think this is a bit of a flaw in the system: to allow it to break CRs right at the end of the process.

Hi @Steven Boardman. A little issuette here. I would have hoped our timezone was congruent but something in that config is posting the Notice time different from the Actual time; like a zone mismatch.

Steve, that is a great option and I've put that into our test flow. Do you know if there is a way to LOCK the fields for Scheduling Change so that beyond a certain point they cannot be edited (such as after authorisation)?

After our Change Requests are authorised, I want everyone who opens the record to see the focus is on the Scheduled Date and Time fields. Else the default is the Update/Comment field. This keeps the Change Window front of mind. How do I do this please? I can see how this is done with the Suspend option but I don't want it to be in suspense during this period.

Hi @Steve G, are you saying that there is no facility at the moment (either through the email aspect or Cloud Automation) to do enable an update to an existing conversation and you will now consider developing that facility in the Cloud Automation piece? Although not promising, do you have a typical time period for this type of thing? I.e. should I forget about it for now or be kinda hopeful for something later this summer?

I can use the email external function in a node to start a Teams conversation. What I REALLY want to be able to do is use Teams as the collaboration workspace and have subsequent updates during the lifecycle of my Change Request that ping updates to the SAME conversation within a Teams Channel. Is there any way to do this? This is what we want: The conversation started with a formatted entry which could be the one initiated by the email receipt from HBSM Our people then REPLY to that thread through the lifecycle to keep the threads for each CR separate. I want HBSM to add to this thread. It should be possible because every Teams conversation has a unique link as per second screenshot.

Victor. My test of this appears to work perfectly but it would be nice to know that this is the officially supported way of releasing to live.