Martyn Houghton

@Daniel Dekel I think you will need three radio button options to complement the the current "When this outcome is selected a reason has to be provided" . Do not display Display, but not mandatory When this outcome is selected a reason has to be provided The first item is the current state with the new view when not mandatory and the third one is the existing state with mandatory set. New second option allows for it to be optionally completed, i.e. visible for entry but not mandatory. From a migration point of view, it would make sense for the second option to be the default as this is the current behaviour in the original view and we can only change this going forward via the BPM for new requests. Cheers Martyn

@Daniel Dekel We have turned this on, but hit an issue with existing incidents, where we do need to complete the 'Reason' field, but this is not appearing for existing requests. How does the activity view determine in the 'Reason' needs to be completed? Is it the mandatory flag only? Cheers Martyn

@Keith Stevenson Ah that explains the number we got and the post below about warning triangles. Cheers Martyn

@Keith Stevenson Okay, that makes sense, so they stay in the Outbox until the two outcomes above. Would this affect historic emails or just new ones sent since the change was deployed? i.e. would we find that we have a lot of unsent messages we were not aware abot? Cheers Martyn

@Keith Stevenson Just to clarify an item will sit in the Sent items without a flag, for its initial sent and only get flagged on at its second attempt? Is this based on the time it takes or the number of time it attempts to send, as with large volume of messages and large size? Cheers Martyn

Presume this is as an unintended consequence of the change introduced in Collaboration build 903. Cheers Martyn

@Daniel Dekel Thanks for the confirmation. I go turn it on now. Cheers Martyn

@Daniel Dekel Spooky, I was just typing an update to this when you posted. New streamlined view look good. Cheers Martyn

@Daniel Dekel Looks good. In terms of the outcomes in the first screen shot how many do they show before a drop down for any remaining ones are shown. Is this available now, or do we need to await a certain build? Cheers Martyn

We have noticed that when a request you have open is updated by the BPM Assign to Service Team after completing the preceding human activity, the Team value is updated correctly in the Assign action tool, but the members display when you expand the Analyst drop down are the member for the previous team, in our case our 1st Tier team, and not the members of the team selected by the BPM. It appears the refresh process to the clients with the request open is not fully working when this 'Assign to Service Team' node is triggered. We are having to manually force a refresh to get the correct values to appear. Cheers Martyn

@Gerry In terms of the UI, I was wondering why a different presentation/selection method was used compared to the tree component used elsewhere where profiles are used? We have number of different part so the organisations (Divisions as you term them) using a common instance, with more coming on board. Each Division will have a number of different products, which will be expressed as one or more Services depending on the licensing options chosen. Each product will potentially have one or more contract types, i.e. On-Prem, Hosted, Rental, Capital, or even custom site specific ones etc Hence why we where looking at a more deeper level breakdown. My ultimate aim is to have all our support contracts within Hornbill with the appropriate linked service subscriptions and said service subscriptions status is dictated by the status/validity of the assoicated contract. Some of which is covered in my earlier post below. Cheers Martyn

At the moment Contract types are limited to 2 levels of the profile codes. Can this be extended to allow further levels, as in organisations where we utilise the system across a number of service desks and divisions? Cheers Martyn

@James Ainsworth Thanks for letting me know the area around linked services and changing service/catalog items are under consideration. Cheers Martyn

@HHH That's is what we are doing at the moment to do it in the BPM, but thought it would be generic for a number of people and also the added benefit of new contacts getting the correct default language. Nice to know other people are doing similar things. Thanks Martyn

At the moment in the Organisation object there is a standard field for Timezone but not one for Language. Would it be possible to have this added as a standard field? We would want new contacts added to the organisation to default to this language, but we would also use this within the BPM (Get Request Informant - Organisation Details) to branch and assign the to correct regional office/language speaking team etc. Cheers Martyn

Like @Jeremy, we would like the facility in the future to customise what standard fields appear in this sections as well as the section title. For example default language, timezone as well as site. Cheers Martyn

Linked to my earlier post a moment ago about the standard File Attachment PC node (link below), it would be useful to have the ability to add a custom description to both the request title and description fields, which you can then add guidance too with Wiki Markup etc. Cheers Martyn

@James Ainsworth From our point of view, we like @Katie Anderson-Weaver, would like to extend the logic around the ownership/maintenance of a service. I think the same 'model' as used in requests needs to apply, in that a request has an single owner (unless just assigned to the team), but all members of supporting teams can update it. I think there needs to be the additional concept of maintaining teams, either by adding an additional entity to hold this or a flag against the existing supporting team entity which would be the most efficient. Also this times in with other requests made on the forum about having the ability to have 'read only' support teams, as this could be another flag held against the support teams entity. Having a single owner who is the only one who can do certain operations is creating a potential single point of failure, when said owner is off/unavailable. Cheers Martyn

@James Ainsworth, @Steven Boardman Are there any plans to adjust the security model and assignable teams when adding linked services? Cheers Martyn

It would be useful to have the ability to add a custom description to the standard Progressive Capture node, the same way you can with custom form fields. For use, this would be to add guidance on what to attach and as well as advising the removal of any personal information , i.e. GDPR. Cheers Martyn

@James Ainsworth Thanks for confirming it is in the pipeline, that will be a great help in combating the requirement 'Can I get an email when.......'. Cheers Martyn

@James Ainsworth Would it also be possible to have displayed telephone number be clickable to allow dial'ing in Skype, as it is on the main Customer section when these changes are implemented. Cheers Martyn

+1 for us as well

@Dan Munns Thanks for the detailed reply, which is what I suspected myself. @James Ainsworth, @Steven Boardman Are there any plans to extend desktop notifications for Service Manager actions/events, in particular request assignment to the individual or team, as there only seems to be partial coverage mainly relying on mentions or BPM. Also, from Dan's point adding the option to the current 'Document Manager' section to include owned document update? Cheers Martyn

@James Ainsworth Thanks. I user configurable default setting per contact/coworker which the Progressive Capture then takes as the default value if the 'contact preferences' node is used. If holding this at a request level, would the end user have the ability to change their mind during the life cycle of the incident and be able to change this via the portal themselves, as well as asking the analyst to do it? Cheers Martyn