Jump to content

Steven Boardman

Hornbill Product Specialists
  • Posts

    2,316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    137

Everything posted by Steven Boardman

  1. Just to add to Victor's comments The current behaviour is that the the BPM is invoked based on a number of different factors: 1. The Service and or Request Type against which the request is logged 2. The Catalog Item of a specific Service against which the request is logged 3. System Settings per request type Once the BP is invoked it manages the invoking of timers, starting and stopping them, sending emails, assignments etc. So this would not be something we would drive from within a business process, as we would not know at what point the Service needed changing. This could possibly be a consideration on the request forms, and if the option to change the Service / Catalog Item was developed we would need to consider a number of factors including: 1. Should the BPM of the old service / Catalog Item keep running or switch to the BP of the new Service / Catalog Item? 2. What if there were different Service Levels running on the original to the one you wanted to switch too. 3. Notifications to the customer of the request from the original BP, if it changed? 4. Customer visibility of the Head's Up Display on the portals if the BP was changed when switching Service / Catalog Item Now none of these are insurmountable but there is a lot to consider with any future development in this area. We would of course welcome your thoughts, ideas and use cases in this area Steve
  2. HI Chris Could you elaborate a little more about what you are looking to achieve? Equally gwynne are you looking for a specific timer linked to the priority to be linked to the request type, or another reason for having a default priority? Thanks Steve
  3. Hi Tina Thanks for chasing on this. There has been progress in this area. In the latest Service Manager update you now have the ability to Map Answers from custom questions in Custom Progressive Capture forms into the summary, description, and any of the custom fields on a request. Because you can now map the questions to the above fields, these fields are available as variables in the email template designer which will in essence give you the ability to include the answers from the questions in Email templates. There is a little more detail here on a post I updated yesterday And if you go to the wiki you will find more information on the mapping and use of these in Email Templates - https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Progressive_Capture_Workflow - If you look under the Mapping Fields from Customised Forms section Hope this helps Steve
  4. Hi Kelvin The latest Service Manager release now includes the ability the ability to map answers from Progressive Capture custom questions into request fields (Summary, Description and any of the custom fields). More information is available on the wiki here: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Progressive_Capture_Workflow#Mapping_Fields_from_Customised_Forms Thanks Steve
  5. Hi Martyn Just an update to let you know the latest release of Service Manager now includes the ability to map the answers from Progressive Capture Questions into the Summary, Description or any of the custom fields on a request. More information here on the wiki: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Progressive_Capture_Workflow#Mapping_Fields_from_Customised_Forms Hope this helps Steve
  6. Just an update to say this feature will be available in build 2.28 which should be available today. More information on the mapping is available here on the wiki: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Progressive_Capture_Workflow#Mapping_Fields_from_Customised_Forms Thanks Steven
  7. Hi We have completed development on a feature which may help here, and will be released shortly. The new feature will allow you to map custom form questions to the Summary, Description, and any of the custom fields for a request. This will mean that if you prefer you may choose not to use the Request Details Progressive Capture form, but instead create a Custom Form, define the questions you want to ask, and map the answers of these questions to any of the custom fields, the summary and or description of the request - and the answers will appear in the Details section of the request. This will allow you to ask multiple questions on a single form. This approach has three additional benefits. 1. Because the answers are mapped to the details section, all the answers in these fields can be edited / changed if needs be. 2. The Questions and Answers are also written to the Questions section on the request so you will always retain the original answers provided. 3. Because the answers have been mapped to the details section (Summary, Description and the custom fields), you can now include these answers in email templates which you may wish to send from a supporting business process, using the variables - Extended Information 1 - 20 where 1 = custom field a, 2 = custom field b and so on. This new feature will be available shortly so look out for the release notes of the next couple of builds we push out. Thanks Steven
  8. Hi Martyn You can assign the activities to the teams, which will give anyone in the team the ability to edit or complete. Only the owner can delete the activity. There is also the consideration of noise. depending on your request volumes, if every member of the 1st line team is being assigned all activities, this will result in a lot of activities in their lists and the supporting notifications . A couple of things to consider Regards Steve
  9. Hi Martyn Could I ask, are you wanting your 1st tier team to also deal with all other aspects of the requests assigned to them? as well as edit / complete tasks assigned to the requests? In regards to the activities, when these are created in the BPM, you can set an Owner and an assignee, and the assignee could be a user, role or group. If you used a group or role for the activities then users with this role or in these groups should be able to edit / complete the activities, or is this what you are doing and the question relates to the role these users need in order to edit / complete? Sorry if I am misunderstanding the issue here? Steve
  10. All, Following on from Gerry's post, in order to address the skipping forms and a few related issues we need to make a few changes to progressive capture and how it handles the transition from one progressive capture to another. This work is in progress and ongoing so please be assured this is a high priority and is being treated as such. The required changes include introducing new configuration options in the progressive capture designer, and as such we need to ensure the wider progressive capture behaviour is maintained whilst also providing a solution to this specific issue. We appreciate this could be causing some inconvenience. We are working to resolve this as quickly as possible, and updates with will be posted here as we make progress on getting these changes completed and released. Regards Steven
  11. Hi Kelvin When you are setting up your Request and Resolution Categories in the admin tool, it is not possible to define different set's for different request types. But if you consider the structure you need for the different Services areas you support, and if there are needs for different ones per Request types when you are creating these, you can then in the SM app and Services configuration for each Service you offer, and for the different request types per Service, set different starting points for your Resolution Category tree for Incidents logged against the Service, or Service Requests logged against the Service. This will result in only the Categories below this starting point being shown on the Resolution action and Resolution Category Tree for that Service and that Request type. I hope that makes sense Steve
  12. Hi Samuel Thanks for the post. We are continuing to evolve the use of the Connections functionality. We started with the ability to add them, and define the relationships, then added BPM operations to automatically add them, remove them and email them from any business process. We also utilise them from behind the Me Too feature of Known Issues on the Self Service Portals, so they are a big piece of our plans going forward. The next step is to add the ability to manually add them as part of the progressive capture process from Self Service or as an analyst. The development story for this exists and is in our technical review column queue, once progressed into development and a release we will update here. Thanks Steve
  13. Hi Martyn We do have plans to extend the search functionality which was recently released in the portals to the progressive capture for both customers and analysts. One area of this was to present relevant FAQ's, along with known issues etc. The back end work has already largely been done in the existing search on the portals and we will be scheduling the work to make this available in progressive capture, so watch this space. Thanks Steve
  14. Thanks Ralf There is a consistent theme here definitely With the examples you mentioned would the ability to define your checklists as tick box items on the tasks, and if needed add attachments help? as these are currently available with tasks, as is the ability to record the time spent on completing the task, and using the new activities view I can filter the tasks by personal views, boards, calendars and search for specific terms in the tasks descriptions as shown below: I am keen to see if it is added functionality needed to the current tasks or if people feel they need more and scheduled Jobs with multiple tasks etc is actually required? Sorry if it appears I am laborings the tasks theme here, but I want to ensure we are aware of it's current capabilities before we explore other options. Thanks Steve
  15. Kelvin Thanks for the feedback, the Configuration Manager app (beta) is available to install from the app store on your instance now, and this will allow your Server team to use Activities against their Servers (once they are marked as In Policy in Configuration Manager). Whilst this isn't the recurring scheduled tasks we are discussing, it will enable them to schedule the Back Up task against each server, complete the job, and schedule the next, keep the history of previous backup's / outcomes, and comments, as well as view these on Activity calendars, lists or they can create a custom board, or view using the new activities functionality which is specific to the backups (Title Contains Backup etc) I hope this helps them in the meantime. Regards Steve
  16. James just to add to this, with the release of Configuration Manager (Beta), it is now possible to have activities raised against individual Assets. With Configuration Manager installed, you can put Assets In Policy from the Configuration Manager options, and any Assets marked as in policy will enable activities and a timeline against each Asset. Info on Configuration Manager: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Configuration_Manager Once an Asset is in policy, this enables activities against those assets as shown below, as well as the ability to post and add comments to a timeline for each asset. As shown above, if you create an activity against the asset, you can set start on, due on dates, you can define what needs to be done, and also create a Check List of items which need to be completed on the task. The Task can be assigned to an individual, group or role, and this can be viewed on calendars etc. Once the Task is complete, there is an option to schedule a Follow Up. The original task is marked as completed and you can record any information, issues etc in the Description field of the task, but this completed task remains as an individual record of the job, which you can view on the calendar, you can create your own views in the new activities views to show completed or pending activities, and on the asset itself you can view both Completed and Assigned Activities which are due from the Follow Up action as shown above. All of the Activities are then reportable against. As James refers to above it would be great to hear what you think would be needed here, is it simply the ability to automate the recurring of the Follow Up action or is more needed? do we need the ability to record more notes, or options to raise a request from an activity etc if further action is needed? Thanks Steve
  17. Thanks for getting back to me Ralf I have asked one of my colleagues to take a look at what is involved and will post back with an update Thanks Steve
  18. Hi Tony Sorry you are still having issues. In the example, as you add a table from the drop down list, and then if you choose a column from that table, the string should automatically be populated with your choices. if you see my example below, I selected the h_itsm_requests table and this was automatically added, as was the user definable prompt, and column I am about to select. Do you not see this when you are populating the values? Regards Steve
  19. Hi Ralf Thanks for the post. Could I clarify if you are looking for these type of automated actions to be added to the timeline? or the option to set them not to append the timeline? Although the configurable option is not there, creating a task through a human task and adding a request member BPM operations do automatically write to the timeline as shown below. Thanks Steve
  20. Hi Thanks for the post. Scheduled calls are not currently available in Service Manager, it is an area we are looking into but there is currently no defined timeframe for the roll-out of this functionality. There is already the functionality to schedule tasks, and for these to have reminders, and manual follow ups, checklists for completing actions on each task. We have new Activity functionality which allows you to view activities in list, board and calendar formats. You are able to view activities assigned to users, roles and groups in the calendars and you are able to build your own views as shown below. Making it easier for you to manage tasks across your groups. We will obviously update as there is progress in regards to scheduled calls. Thanks Steve
  21. Hi Gareth Thanks for the post. The behaviour you have described is the current expected behaviour. We do however have a development planned to give the options to filter the Services list based both on the the Services the customer is subscribed too, and also the services which the loggers (team's) support. This will be a configurable as in some customer environments, they would like anyone to be able to log a request for a customer, regardless of which team it will be routed to, but others would simply like the list of services filtered to those services provided by the team the logger works in. The example being if the customer has called the finance team, then it makes sense to only show the Finance supported services to the members of the finance team logging the request. This development is planned and I will update once this there is a bit more information on when it will be available. Thanks Steve
  22. Hi Samuel Thanks for your post. We have a development planned around the use of definable sub statuses, with configurable rules around if the use of each should pause / un pause the timers (Imagine - With Customer or With Supplier as examples). Other options include rules for changing status on receipt of an update, what can be done whilst on hold and notification options, on status changes. This may well be a shorter term win than the suggested extension of the individual notification options for specific Service Manager actions to the users Notification area on their profile, whilst this is on our agenda it is not in the immediate short term plans. I hope this helps, and of course we will update as the sub-status development is available. Thanks Steve
  23. Thanks for the posts. There are some options to show the respond by / resolve by columns in the request list, and for the SL column to show the timers current status, albeit maybe not showing those approaching breach. We are doing some work around the Service Level functionality which you will start to see in the coming weeks, and we are also completing some work around rebuilding the Views Condition Builder to make it easier for us to add more clause options easier, so we can start to look into adding more options around the service level targets etc but In the meantime there is the option to use our Boards and Escalation actions to give you some of the visibility you maybe after. You can create a Breach Board, and on the Board create lists which say reflect calls which may breach today, or in 2 hours etc. Then using the Escalation actions, you can have the calls automatically added to the Breach Board, and move across the breach board as their targets approach, as shown in the example below: These Breach Boards can be supported by the other email and re-assignment escalation options which are also available. A few useful links around this: Boards: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/My_Boards Escalation Actions: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Set_up_Service_levels Specifically the Add to Boards sections. Once we have some updates on enhancements to the request list options we'll post back here. I hope this helps Steve
  24. Hi Tony I can replicate the issue if you leave the Table and Column values of the Filter empty (as it appears in your screen shot), however if you specify the table and column (from the drop downs) that you want the user date prompt to run against, then the rest of your configuration looks fine for a user defined date prompt. In my example below I am running a report with a user input prompt on the h_sys_tasks table and h_completed_on column with the rest of the configuration the same as your example (albeit I have an extra Select Tables tab as I am joining tables) and this seems to run as expected. I hope this helps? Steve
  25. Hi Martyn Apologises for this it is a little bit of a label issue, but it is there it is under Fix By Date, see example below. Hope this helps Thanks Steve
×
×
  • Create New...