Andrew Parsons

Hi - When any ticket is logged via our customer portal, it hands over to a standard capture which asks for some general information (contact details, supporting attachments, affected asset) The following node is used to gather Asset information. This is not mandatory, as not every ticket relates to a laptop for example. It displays to the customer as follows: As the selector defaults to My Assets, it usually shows the current device they are using. All they have to do (if they want to) is click the Link button on the right. As the device name shows as a hyperlink, some customers have been clicking this instead of the Link button. For myself, if I click it it takes me to the Assets section within Service Manager which is not a problem. However our customers are Basic users, so instead get taken to this page: Not realising their mistake, they're then calling the Service Desk to complain the portal is not working. What options do we have here? 1) Is it possible to remove the hyperlink? 2) is it possible to grant basic users READ ONLY access to the Assets section? (so they won't get this error at least) 3) Something else I haven't considered?

I need this for a project I'm working on, could you respond to the above?

Thanks @Steve Giller - how do we go about updating this?

@Steve Giller according to my colleague we're on XMLMC Database Asset Import Utility v3.3.3 - so I'm guessing we will now be told to upgrade. As I've asked a few times - why does Service Manager not think I have assets that are shown as Owned by me if I look up my co-worker record? Is this a confirmed known bug in versions lower than v.4.4.1 ? Or am I using the right type of node in the bpm?

Sorry @Steve Giller, wasn't clear as you quoted a section of my post where I was talking about Lansweeper. I will have to check with our system admin who is OOO today, unless there's a way of finding out from within Service Manager?

Hi Steve - we're using v11.1.1.3 of lansweeper. Again, not sure why this is relevant. Either way, my name is being recorded against an asset in Hornbill. Whether this is correct or not is beside the point, it's that Service Manager is saying I have no assets when I clearly do.

Hi @Steve Giller I'm not sure I understand. First up - latest version? Of HB SM? See below for when I go to About. I don't know the full details but we have an import from Lansweeper. It appears to use the last logon user to populate "used by" and "owned by". In any case, my name appears against a device in those fields. ...but when I try and "add assets" belonging to me via a bpm, it says my user id has no assets associated. I'm using the same node as the original poster in this thread, but still get "The user owns no assets of the selected class and type" despite me being an owner of the above device as far as Service Manager is concerned.

Hi @Steve Giller - I tried this (removed myself from that asset). It's now showing against me again (as i'm the last person to log on to it). Again when I run my process to get customer assets, i get the same error of no assets owner by me.

Is there a way of adding an auto response on the Service Manager inbox? The problem we have is that our customers will either raise a ticket via the self service portal, or a service desk analyst will raise a ticket on their behalf. We do not offer an 'email in' function for logging tickets, only updating existing tickets. Once a customer has a ref number, there may be communication between our Service Desk and them via the email function in Service Manager. There is a 'catch all' rule that updates the existing ticket as long as a valid reference number is included in the subject line. However, as users are aware of this address, they have started emailing it when they have a new issue. As they don't have a reference number at that stage, the email hits the inbox, and does nothing. As we are not monitoring this mailbox, these are being missed. Inbound routing rules are very limited in that it only allows you to file the email into a folder, or trigger an action within Service Manager (which will either result in it logging a new ticket, or updating an existing) As we'd rather customers cannot raise a new ticket via email, neither of these options work for us. Ideally we'd like something like an autoresponse at the bottom of the inbound rules (so if all other rules before it fail, it messages them advising that this mailbox is not monitored, and they'll have to raise a request) This doesn't seem possible in inbound rules (I'd rather it didn't generate a ticket, which runs a BPM just to send an email back telling them to log a ticket!). Are there any other ways of achieving this?

Thanks Steve, I'd come to the same conclusion, which is why I've raised this

Thanks Steve - re: comparing the last update, how would this be done? Are you saying it can check for a piece of text in that update and take an action based on this?

Hi Steve, but we want the next action (after email received) to be automated, rather than someone having to take action. Also, if the user happens to email in asking for an update, this would also trigger the next action, so ideally we could add condiitons (eg: email is from xyz@hb.com, subject contains "xyz" etc.

Thanks Steve, but i'm talking about using it to check an incoming email, and if it contains a certain phrase in the subject / body, then perform a specific action (eg: close the call, reassign it, put it on hold) As per my example above, we deal with external vendors. We are starting to work with one who will be dealing with our laptop provisioning for new starters. So throughout the lifecycle of a ticket, they may send 3-4 emails ("order received", "order shipped", "order delivered", "order has been returned" etc). We could agree a unique code for each of these circumstances, and the vendor would then add these into the subject line for each situation. Depending on which one is received, the bpm would then take a different action. Simply waiting for (any) email in would not have the same control (what if the user chases? or an analyst adds an update etc).

+100 In general, the ability to add a rule in the inbox to auto reply would also be handy (therefore if it fails all other rules, it fires a mail back)

Thanks Steve - apologies if it is complicated, but it would really benefit customers