Estie

Hi Steve, I have just checked and looks like one of the approvers does not have that role. I did not realise this was needed. Thank you I will update their role.

Hi, We have had 3 failed business processes this morning due to Get Card ID node failed. This seems to be something to do with permissions to the boards. We have not changed anything. Is there an issue with the boards?

@Berto2002 - I am trying to change the wording on the above red and green buttons, however I cannot see which option I need in the Service Manager translations. I have tried changing a couple but nothing happens Can you point me in the right direction please? Thanks

Thank you I will have a think about that.

@Steve Giller- I was wondering if the portal visibility option of the Service in the Service Portfolio might be an option here? Can a Service and the catalog items in that service be active but not visible in the portal? I have found the following in the Wiki but don't quite understand all of it: Portal Visibility If the Service will be visible on the Employee, Customer and Service Portals for subscribed users. Visible Subscribed users will see, and have access to their requests raised against the Service, even if they you have restricted their ability to raise tickets from the portals for this Service. Hidden Subscribed users will not see the Service on the Customer or Service portal - Useful when defining a technical Service rather than a business Service. Sorry I feel like I am having a blank here - but not been involved in the setup of the Service Portfolio much. How would I restrict user's ability to raise tickets from the portal? Is that via their roles or via the catalog item settings for visibility?

@James Ainsworth I have found the information about visibility on the Wiki. I will carry on with that on my other post

Thanks @James Ainsworth unfortunately this is our main service which is open to all coworkers and contains all our FAQs. We have limited the Services Manager Role already. Auditing services would be very welcome, and good to know it is being planned. Given that we have no services without catalog items it does not seem to be causing any particular issues at the moment. Just as an aside, what does the portal visibility do? Can a Service be active but not visible in the portal? (this is relevant to another one of my posts). Thanks

Thanks for the suggestion. The form needs to be accessed only by the recipient of the email via a link in the email. The email is not part of the BPM, it is the first part of an external to Hornbill process, so adding the users to a group via the BPM would not work. I think we will most likely place the form somewhere that is not too obvious on the portal. Would be good to have a visibility option on the portals so that a form can be made visible or not but still be active - perhaps this could be put forward as an enhancement. Thanks

Thanks as far as I am aware nobody is or has been updating this workflow. I believe the catalog entries override this setting - is that correct?

This might be useful: The Wiki about Workarounds and Known Errors advises: Known Errors It is not necessary to raise a Problem record in circumstances where it is known that a permanent fix is not available. In such cases a Known Error record can be raised containing the workaround information. This is more efficient and removes the steps associated with raising a problem record first and then having to promote this to a known error. Any user with the Problem Management User role will be able to raise a Known Error. This page suggests that Known Errors can also have the 'Me too option': https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php?title=Publish_Action_Item I am not quite sure how to raise the known error yet.

In our Service Portfolio I have noticed that the Workflow field in the config of one of our Services seems to keep changing from being empty to showing a specific workflow. None of the administrators seem to have changed the option. It is possible another user may have changed this possibly by mistake. Is there any log that shows changes that may have been made and by whom? Thanks

Hi, we have a new IC which we only wish to be visible to Line Managers when they are sent a link to it in an email. It has a BPM associated with it. Is there a way to hide the IC so it is only accessible by the Line Managers via the link in an email? Do we still need to add it to the catalog to link the BPM? If so how do we hide the IC? Currently we do not have any details in Hornbill to distinguish who is a Line Manager. Thanks Just to add that the email containing the link to the IC will be sent from outside of Hornbill.

Hi @Steve Giller I notice the latest SM update includes Support for "date range" custom form field in IC Is that related to this post? If so where would I see the option to validate in the custom form? Thanks

Hi the way I got around this was to add the users who need read only access as interested connections. My users only required access to certain types of tickets ie Major incidents so was able to add a node to the relevant BPM to add them as interested connections if a Major incident was raised. Seems to work well and no Service Manager Licence was needed. They view the requests from the home portal. I found this Wiki page very useful: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php?title=Connections Hope that helps

Hi Steve, Is there any update to this enhancement please? Thanks

Hi Steve, Yes - Although I was hoping to display it as part of the customer details so it can be seen even when not raising a request. Do you mean in one of the Attribute fields in the user entry in Platform Config? If so Is there a way to show these additional fields in a custom IC form? It seems that additional fields are only available in the standard forms. Would this update if the primary asset was to change?

Hi, Is there a way to add the asset information for a customer to the customer details so that it shows when raising a ticket? I understand there is a standard Intelligent capture for assets - however we are using customised forms. Currently we rely on the customer or the analyst to add asset information to the IC. Is there a way we can always display the assets assigned to a customer in their details? Hopefully this is in the correct forum. I could not see one specifically for asset management. Thanks

@James Ainsworth- Checked with users and all working via the employee portal rather than the email link. Thanks for your help

@James Ainsworth- I have told them to go to the employee portal and My requests and connections. However it is entirely possible that they are clicking the link from an email as you suggest. I will check and confirm back. Thanks

@Victor No they are not as this requires a service manager licence as I understand it. I was under the impression from the Wiki on this that even Basic users can be added as connections and given visibility of requests. Just to add that we are trying to avoid giving these users access to all incidents and requests or granting a SM licence, and only wish them to access those they are added to as connections.

Hi I have added two users as interested connections to major incidents via a BPM. They are being added and getting email notifications of the incidents, however they see the below error when trying to view the requests from the employee portal under the My requests> connections option: They are both set as 'user' in our instance. They both have the following roles: The connections settings in Service Portfolio are set so interested connections can view and allow collaboration on Incidents and Service Requests. I cannot see what I am doing wrong. Any ideas please? Thank you.

Hi I have come across the customer request type form in the WIKI Service Manager Intelligent Capture - Hornbill However I cannot see this form in our list of ICs or as an option in any of the default forms. Should I be able to see it somewhere?

@James Ainsworth - We have this scenario on custom ICs - is this still the case? Or is there now a way on an IC to check that the end date is not before the start date?

The workflows are in the service manager suspended list - which If I am right you explained are in BP instances table.

@Victor Thanks for the explanations above. The extra work being caused goes back to my comments in the below post about the number of indefinitely suspended workflows which have accumulated and need analysing to understand the reason they are suspended. The suspended workflow screen is now regularly not responding which I think means it is timing out maybe due to the number of indefinitely suspended workflows in there. Surely good housekeeping practice dictates that these workflows should be cleared out, rather than simply left there? Also as per my earlier comments we need to resolve the issue of automated actions in the later stages of the BPM not being completed and ensure our reporting is accurate. I think our process needs changing but I am not sure of the best way of doing this.