Steven Boardman

@yelyah.nodrog ok, so the updates are customer visibility and you are seeing them on the newsfeed so i believe these should trigger a notification, if you are following. Given what you have already provided, the quickest route to figure out what is going on maybe via our support team, can i ask you to raise the issue here: https://www.hornbill.com/support and the support team can pick this up and work with you to see what is happening

@HGrigsby i've added you to the story as well thanks

@lee mcdermott the suspend update operation is awaiting the following - so it is waiting for an update to be applied via the update action on the request So it won't progress or un-suspend on incoming emails etc. The only other option you may want to consider is the concept of customer updates, and the use of sub-statuses auto-update on customer updates, with the suspend await off-hold option. I haven't tested this with Change requests, but it does work as expected with Incidents and Service Requests but you could look at something like this: 1. Add active and in-active sub-statuses to the Change Request request type (globally via the admin console or per service under configuration and the change request ta). 2. You can set am active sub-status the request will automatically be set to if a CUSTOMER update is received on the change 3. Mark vis toggling the sub statuses a request can automatically move from if a customer update is received (you'd need some on-hold sub-statuses for this to work). 4. You could in your business process but the change on-hold with say an on-hold sub status which allows an auto change on receipt of a customer update, which is then followed by a suspend await off-hold. Then if the customer provides a update - via email or the portal, the active sub-status would take the change off hold and the suspend await off hold node would come into play to progress the process and notify the change owner. 4. You would need to enable the following settings, in the admin console under service manager and settings Now with this, one key element is the Customer, In Hornbill there is logic in place, which will only accept an update as having come from the customer is it comes in one of two ways * Via the self service portal and the customer is the logged in user (not a connection or customer's manager) * Via an email update from the email address held against the customer in their user record I mention these, as it would not allow you to email to a distribution address, and then have each member of CAB reply from their personal email addresses, these updates would not be classed as customer updates, and as such the sub status would not change and the suspend await off-hold would not be triggered. Just to repeat, i haven't stepped through this with a change request but the logic should all be in place. The above approach should be fine where the customer of the change is a single user. Our customer success team are available to assist with configurations and logic via our expert services offering, which your relationship manager will be able to arrange with you. Hope that helps Steve

@lee mcdermott no problem, glad your getting there - enjoy the weekend (as much as we can right now).

@lee mcdermott a couple of things to check 1. If you show the custom P field in the details of the change record, you'll be able to confirm if the 'need more info' reason is being written into that field in the first place. 2. Assuming it is, you will then need a get request info node between the node which is updating custom field p and the sending of the email node, which you are looking to include the value held in the custom p field. Hopefully that helps

Hi @Paul Alexander @Martyn Houghton @HHH we do have a story for this, and it has some customer support already (including yourselves from other forum discussions on this topic). As soon as this is scheduled we will come back and update this post.

Hi @AndyGilly thanks for the post, and we're pleased you're finding the update and other asset operations useful. We have created a story to create new assets via the business process designer. This story needs to be prioritised and then scheduled and we'll post back once it progresses onto our scheduled development queue.

@Shamaila great to hear

@Jack_Podmore you can get to it, and evaluate the Job Title, but it's a couple of steps 1. Use a get Customer Info node - one of the output params is customerid 2. Follow this with a Use a Hornbill Collaboration > Applications > Users > Get Users Details option and use the customerid from the output params in step 1 to identify the user you want the info for in the input params userid One of the output params for this node is Job Title as shown in the image above, so you can follow that node with your decision node and branch accordingly. Hope that helps

@Alisha @Martyn Houghton @samwoo There is now an option in the business process designer which allows you to Get the list of assets linked to a request, and use that output string to populate a custom field and inject that into email templates. You can choose to return a list of just the asset names, or include the asset type with the returned list You can do this for all assets of a request or per asset class These are under Entity > Requests > Assets Hope that helps

@Dan Munns @samwoo There is now an option in the business process designer which allows you to Get the list of assets linked to a request, and use that output string to populate a custom field and then inject this into email templates. You can choose to return a list of just the asset names, or include the asset type with the returned list You can do this for all assets of a request or per asset class These are under Entity > Requests > Assets Hope that helps

@lee mcdermott the external authorisation is designed for a single recipient so won't work as you have described, as the process is waiting for a single outcome, it can't be reused by multiple recipients, in that way. There is no issue with you having multiple external authorisations in the same process, but each one would be to a single recipient (or put it another way, awaiting a single outcome). I am not sure you will be able to use the routing rules to achieve what you are after - these are separate from the business process of a ticket. The routing rule can be used to determine if an update is applied to an existing request or not - based on it's content etc, but i am not sure this would help, as you would want all emails to be added? I.e Approved, Rejected, More info needed. The suspend await update, will take any update and then unsuspend, not just an email update so in practise i am not sure you will get a good consistent experience, as any update could move the process forward. Equally there isn't a Get option which will allow the business process to assess the content of the last update to make decisions against. Ultimately i can see what you are trying to achieve, however it does look like Hornbill provides the approval mechanism for this, but it is only available to users who have a Hornbill platform subscription, outside of this, it is possible to manage your approvals via email but without the automation.

@Shamaila the self service portal is primarily designed to allow a user to raise and view requests, there is also a view to allow a user's manager visibility to the tickets their staff have raised. If the manager is changed on the user's record, the new manager should have visibility on the portal almost straight away - has the manager refreshed the browser, or logged out and back in again? Do you have this Global setting enabled: Admin Console > Home > Applications > Service Manager > Settings Which self service portal are you using? i.e which URL are they using live.hornbill.com/YOURINSTANCE service.hornbill.com/YOURINSTANCE If your not sure feel free to share a screen shots of the interface and that will tell us. If you change the manager of a user, there should not be any implications apart from if you are using the relationship between a user and a manager for things like line manager approvals in business processes, or if you are sending email notifications to a user's manager as part of a business process. When you mention a senior member of the Finance team seeing all finance tickets, what are they specifically looking to do? * Is this from a support perspective? is so self service may not be the right view * Is it simply visibility of everything that the finance team are logging with IT? is so would a scheduled daily / weekly / monthly email report of all finance raised requests, give them what they need? If you can let us know what the senior member of finance needs, we can hopefully make some suggestions? Steve

@lee mcdermott ok, if the CAB members are Basic users, then the approvers option isn't going to be available to you, and as you say the email option is the manual way of doing this, of course the owner of the change will receive update notifications when the emails come in but it will require the owner then to view the change to see the update and no automation to leverage there. I don't think this will work for you either in this context (where you have multiple CAB members), however i will mention it: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php?title=External_Authorisation We do have this option which allows an authorisation to be sent to a SINGLE Email recipient, this is in the form of a preset email template - you can include 1024 characters of variable text, and change the approval outcome display names (but limited to 3 - Approve, Reject, Tentative). * The email recipient can be set manually or via variable - i.e look up the user's email address using a bpm operation * The email contains a link to a webpage, where the user can review what is being asked and can commit a decision without the need to login to Hornbill * The business process is Suspended awaiting either the outcome of the authorisation decision or the expiry of it, if no decision is received (there has to be an expiry on this node). This option would allow your change process to send an email and await an outcome and automatically progress the process based on the outcome, or if the approval time expired, but it is restricted to a SINGLE Email recipient. I am sure you can tell by the name of the option (external authorisation), it's primary purpose is to allow an authorisation to be sought from a user who is not known on the Hornbill platform (i.e has no account), as they are not required to login to Hornbill to review and make their decision. However, it could be of some use here. That aside i am not sure i am going to be able to help with the automation of this aspect, unless the CAB members had the Hornbill subscription and could be assigned authorisation tasks.

@lee mcdermott are the CAB members Hornbill platform subscribers i.e are they of type User not Basic? I.e can they be assigned a Hornbill Task / Approval? they don't need to be Service Manager app subscribers. If so would the standard approval mechanism not work for you? what i mean here is that you can have 3 outcomes to an approval task *Approve * Reject *Tentative Which would seem to cater for your three different outcomes, and of course this could use the standard decision and branch on the different outcomes, and it would allow you to assign weighting to the approvers i.e 50% to each, which would require 2 to approve to proceed the process and of course this would be automatic progress? The other benefit of this approach, is the CAB members don't need to be full Service Manager subscribers, and they get to view the Change Record themselves as a User type subscriber. We added a new view for User type subscribers to be able to view the change, so they have context of the change they are being asked to approve, and they can view attachments and comment on the change itself? I've included the view below, this shows: * Process Tracker * Timeline * Attachments * Questions section * Description It's not the full view i.e they won't have access to the action bar on the request, but they will be able to add updates and comment on existing updates from this view. Obviously this won't be available if they are Basic users. Let me know

@yelyah.nodrogif the updates are showing in the newsfeed for you, you can just open the request from the newsfeed and in the request timeline each update will have - Customer, Team, Owner displayed, which is the visibility level of the update - if you could let us know what they are set to that would be great.

@lee mcdermott great news on the assign to team, I think it was the value which was being evaluated which needed updating. In the admin tool each team (org grouping) has an ID, and a display value, this operation needs the display name and it works Working latish, just finishing up but thought i'd update the discussion as i know it can be frustrating if your stuck on something and want to get it done. In regards to the suspend await update action - what are you specifically waiting for from the email? The suspend await email is actually waiting for an email to be sent rather than received i'm afraid. But if i know what your waiting on, i can have a think about other options

@lee mcdermott i've run up the same config as you and have it working, using the teams group picker in progressive capture and then the assignment to team from variable. Could you try the following. 1. Set Team to ignore rather than Auto 2. In the Team (from variable), When using the variable picker can you confirm you are using the Overwrite - Display Value option when you are adding the value into the field (it looks like you are using the raw value). So it looks like this (with your pcf reference of course) The ignore and overwrite should ensure the correct value is being assessed. I've tried it from the employee portal and agent interface and it works as expected for me. Let me know how you get on

@yelyah.nodrog thanks, could you confirm the update visibility settings for those updates?

@yelyah.nodrog for the tickets you are following, are you viewing the tickets when the updates are added? if this is the case the updates in the Hornbill notifications will auto dismiss, and you will not see them, but if you look in the Dismissed list they should be there? Secondly, if you go to the Newsfeed - are you seeing updates which have been added to ticket you are following being posted there? Thirdly could you check the update visibility of the updates you are expecting to see, what is this set too? In the example below it is Customer Let me know when you have a chance

@Tina.Lapere yep, so when you create the new request, and the questions are copied across, in the BPM of the new request you can use decisions, and those decisions will be based on the answers held in the newly created ticket question section.

@Tina.Lapere No change in regards to evaluating answers inside another ticket, however I am not sure if this will help, but if you are using the BPM to automate the creation of the linked ticket, using one of the option like below Then we have extended this, and you can now Copy the questions section into the newly created request So in the business process of the newly created request you will have the questions and answers from the original request.

@lee mcdermott you will need to use the field below Team which is Team (From Variable) so use your variable picker in this field and see how you get on.

@lee mcdermott looking at the config, it looks like your missing the Get Card Information node between the Add to Change Board (Standard) and Move card on board (Standard), without this node, to get the card id, you can't move the card using the move card on board option. As per the above info, in the get card information node, use the &[global["inputParams"]["requestId"]] value as the key. then in the move card on board option, the card id can be added using the variable picker and the output param from the get card information node

@lee mcdermott is the agent had another board manager role they should not need the Board BPM Access role, but if they didn't have any then whoever invokes a process which uses the board options, would need this. If you can share the error message you had, we can see if it's a rights / role issue or a configuration related one If you click on the board, and then click on the card on the board, in the righthandside panel, the request card view will appear, and a remove option is available.