Berto2002
-
Posts
1,303 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Enhancement Requests
Posts posted by Berto2002
-
-
From what I understand, there may be the possibility to create your own Asset classes coming in future; although I cannot yet see it on the roadmap.
-
1
-
-
That sounds like an excellent option.
-
Regardless of what it was before with regards the defaults, we've got side-tracked: my original point was that by introducing the collapsible search feature, the new UI asks every user (that needs to alter the default search type on any given screen; which is most times) for one additional click (to expand the box).
Used to be 4 steps:
- Click on drop-down
- Select Requests (or required type)
- Enter search term
- Press enter or click search
Now 5 steps (25% increase in required clicks):
- Click to expand collapsed search feature - additional step
- Click on drop-down
- Select Requests (or other)
- Enter search term
- Press enter or click search
However, I'll leave it there with feedback given. The UI over-haul as a whole is an excellent improvement and Hornbill have been very responsive to concerns and suggestions. I should finish with a thanks for all that good work!
-
Yes, if I navigate within the app, the "Requests" remain persistent. But as soon as I use any links (like Favourites) or anything in the Hornbill waffle menu (which opens another tab) to get to any locations, it reverts to the ones mentioned above with CoWorkers being the default choice
-
Requests, yes, defaults to Requests:
Contacts yes, defaults to Contacts:
Organisations, es, defaults to Organisations:
Boards no, defaults to Co-workers (Expect Requests):
Suppliers, no, defaults to Co-workers (expect Suppliers):
Assets, no, defaults to Coworkers (expect assets):
So something in our instance has a defect by the sounds of it?
-
Sorry, not really. If I go to Boards I open the search, it has Coworkers every time, regardless of whether I have searched form a Board or not.
So from any screen other than Request List it seems, I have two clicks to search for Requests now; this is exactly the point I made in my first post about the UI now having one additional click and slowing everyone down for the sake of looking pretty.
I request again you revert to a permanently visible (uncollapsed) search box which was working just fine.
-
On 27/09/2023 at 06:35, Daniel Dekel said:
The new UI for the Global Search did not change the number of clicks. When you search you need to click on the search button and then the text input gets focused automatically, so no aditional click is needed
@Daniel Dekel the global search has sometimes defaults to "Coworkers" so there ARE sometimes two clicks required to search for Requests (or ALT-X plus a click). Your statement about it defaulting to "Requests" seems correct for the this screen (https://live.hornbill.com/xxx/servicemanager/requests/) but when I click the search from say Board Manager (https://live.hornbill.com/xxx/boardmanager/board/5/) or Supplier Manager (https://live.hornbill.com/xxx/suppliermanager/suppliers/) or the portal view (https://live.hornbill.com/xxx/internal/catalog/hr/) the default is Coworkers. So looks like the default of Requests is only working for Service Manager...
-
We have such low volumes of such tickets we have not tried this.
Note these two requests though:
-
Had a look at this and we also search for the applications a user is in when we have a Mover ticket; and we cannot allow this to be destructive as they are not leaving. So this is now the use case we have no workaround for (other than planning to ensure we have no more than 10 apps configured for any given OG type.
-
@Sam P in the last, our analysts have reported they cannot schedule changes in a freeze so this may be a permissions issue. What perms do you give these Users? I think Change Management Full Access gives ability to over-ride freezes.
As a change manager, I can always schedule etc but that's how it should be.
-
i have sent you an example procedure which might be useful for you. @Tina.Lapere.
-
2
-
-
One year on, I wonder if any other customers would welcome enhancement in this area: Enhancing the Autotask functionality to be more of an on-demand sub-workflow that can accept, update and process variables.
I believe this will be very powerful. The main reason to have it would be to enable execution of operations any time in the lifecycle of the Request where the chronological nature of the main Request Workflow/BPM normally only allows those operations at certain points in time. The example of booking a calendar appointment is good: you cannot predict when it will be possible due to the variable of when the customer replies with availability so an ability for an on-demand 'task' to pop an input box and use that input to update a Request variable field/custom field and then operate on it would be very useful
-
1
-
-
@Ben Maddams and @HHH I will use this as an opportunity to see if you'd like to support this long-requested feature of enhancing the Autotask functionality to be more of an on-demand sub-workflow that can accept variables. I believe this will be very powerful. The main reason to have it would be to enable execution of operations any time in the lifecycle of the Request where the chronological nature of the Workflow/BPM normally only allows those operations at certain points in time. Your example of booking a calendar appointment is perfect; you cannot predict when this will be possible to do and may want to do it at multiple stages of the main Request Workflow so the ability for the Autotask to pop an input box and use that input to update a Request field/custom field and then operate on it would be very useful.
-
@Amanda Durgan are you using Supporting Teams in Service Portfolio? Is that team with the issue listed as Supporting Team for the Service or Services having the issue?
-
After a Get Customer Details Workflow node we see a lot of "% Custom %" fields:
We are about to sync the Cost Code from AD into Service Manager and I am about to nominate one of the Customer Custom Fields (below). We know these are the "Customer Custom x" fields above because they work as such for our Basic Users and are available to view in the User Profile screen (see below).
Knowing there is a "Costcenter" field somewhere I would like to use it. I cannot see any "Costcenter" fields in the User profile for Full or Basic Users (they are not listed in the "Custom Fields" tab), let alone custom fields for costcenter, company, department and division.
Short questions: 1) in an AD sync (LDAP user import), what field name do we put in the import script to hit the "costcenter" field above and 2) where can we view that in the UI for our Full and Basic Users?
-
-
11 hours ago, Steve Giller said:
Capture Outcome fields in Human Tasks?
Yes
I can select "dynamic drop-down box" option in both Workflow and ICF but my "data provider" options are only simplelists in Workflows; whereas in the ICF sister function, there is a "Provider Type" which allows selection of "Simplelist" or "Data Query" and then the latter onwards shows the "Data Provider" with different "pickers" (including the new one for members of an organisation group).
What I am highlighting is that it looks like at one stage the ICF and Workflow versions of these "Field Type Settings" were created to do the same job but they have diverged or not been kept in line as time has gone on; so there are different capabilities in each. At the high level I am really requesting these be aligned.
In Workflow:
In ICF:
Workflow options in the Field Type include the two "pickers":
The Provider Type which is "missing" from the Workflow version, behind which the ICF version allows so much more rich selections:
As a result of this, my Basic Users can select a user from an Org Group but my Full Users have no functionality to be able to do the same, as an example.
-
Hmm, that's weird, it's now working. Well great!
-
Has anyone reported that the "customize columns" does not work in the UI Preview in the Request List? I click it and nothing happens. I need to switch back to the 'old' interface to be able to get the button to work. @Daniel Dekel
-
That would help in the Leaver case, certainly. I will have a think through that idea.
But it's a 'destructive' approach so could not be used in any case where membership of the groups is still required.
-
We use this node quote a lot to discover what Organisation (organization) groups a user is in when they leave, so we can trigger removal requests and remove them.
The nodes returns results for up to 10 instances of the given group type; in the case above, this was "General".
We often paste this on the timeline for service desk visibility thus:
We use Org Groups for Subscribers to individual Services (applications) and the workflows add and remove users to these OGs each time the app team action create or remove a user.
I want to expand this facility but can you guess the issue? That's right, it won't be long before our users are members of more than 10 OGs of Type General. And then the workflow nodes will only 'Get' the first 10 and then we won't be able to act upon all their apps when they leave.
So I think I am highlighting what looks like a hard-coded limitation that is going to stop us expanding the use of our 'automated' subscriber list management system. And this, in itself, holds us back trying to make the portal easier for everyone by only showing the Services (apps) they have access to.
Yes, we have other OG types that could give 10+10+ etc but that means spreading my workflows for this activity across the types which will be confusing to manage and won't guarantee the issue won't occur because any given user may end up with the exact spread of 11+ apps that are in any given type.
I mentioned this in the HUG23 to Dave in TS but I don't know Dave's handle on there to alert him.
Can I please request a review and to get back to me on what we can do here to rectify or me workaround this limitation?
Thanks,
Rob
-
Ah, ok, yes, I would endorse that this should be on ALL Requests (if in the team) because about half of our initial assignments use "most available" or "round robin" assignment in workflow so the button will rarely show.
Analysts do need to dive-in and take ownership from other analysts in the team sometimes (easier for someone to say "I'll grab that from you" than ask them to "please assign to me").
+1 for all Requests (assuming user is in the same team); because it's quicker than using the re-assignment function.
-
3
-
-
-
1
-
-
Disable Timeline Whist in Resolved Status
in Service Manager
Posted
Am I right in thinking you have this setting already?
If I were you I would raise this as a defect. The text in the setting clearly states it should be a read-only view; but a view that allows commenting on existing timeline entries is not a read-only view. I'd class this as a defect because it exposes all Hornbill customers to having their users commenting on closed tickets and never getting a response; a real risk to customer sat.