Jump to content

Martyn Houghton

Hornbill Users
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,028

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    86

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Martyn Houghton

  1. Martyn Houghton
    @Victor Thanks. I was obviously too quick in checking.
  2. Martyn Houghton
    @Victor I notice Service Manger build 966 is showing as available to update to but there does not appear to be any detail on the content. I am presuming this is a minor release to address some of the issue found in build 964, but can you confirm its content. Thanks Martyn
  3. Martyn Houghton
    @Gerry Not sure if its just me, but when I click on the link there is no reference to the HUG Cheers Martyn
  4. Martyn Houghton
    @Gerry , @James Ainsworth Indeed there is a wider discussion to be had about the current content displayed on the portals. In terms of scheduling reports etc is there any further plans on this front? Cheers Martyn
  5. Martyn Houghton
    @Gerry Agreed there may well be more field requirements for the customer portal, as at the moment it does not have SLA information displayed which is the other common request we get. Cheers Martyn
  6. Martyn Houghton
    @Gerry The use case is that we have organisations who want to download request history of their current active incidents and also their closed requests, in order to review/report on this information in Excel. For the basic level it is just the exporting of the current columns via CSV. This is to avoid us having to implement individual reports for each organisation and have to run them manually as there is no process to schedule/distribute them at the moment. Cheers Martyn
  7. Martyn Houghton
    @James Ainsworth Would it be possible to add and export option in the Customer and Service Portal for a user to export the list contents of either their requests or their organisation requests. Initially it would just need to be the currently displayed colums into CSV or Excel format? Cheers Martyn
  8. Martyn Houghton
    @SJEaton Glad you got it sorted. Cheers Martyn
  9. Martyn Houghton
    @Ehsan Thanks, if it is added into the Routing Rules/Template we would need to specify the target organisation to set the new contact up within, i.e. we have a 'Public Users' organisation created where we set these up under. I would also presume the display name sent as part of the email header would be used to populate the name details? Cheers Martyn
  10. Martyn Houghton
    @Paul Alexander We seem to have the same behaviour as well on our instance, so would appear to be some missing prerequisite or issue with the form. Cheers Martyn
  11. Martyn Houghton
    @Victor Thanks I give it a go, but I suspect we will want to send it from the BPM so we have control over the contents and which mailbox it come from. Ideally if we can get the email value into the BPM and then a new BPM node is created to allow or the creation of the new contact record, that would allow us to achieve the creation of new contacts in a controlled manner based on the service etc. @James Ainsworth is this something that could be considered? Cheers Martyn
  12. Martyn Houghton
    @Victor, @Sonali, @Ehsan We use the 'New' status and these do show in the Request List but under there own filter value, i.e. you will not see 'New' status calls under 'Open', you have to deliberately click on 'New' to see them. Cheers Martyn
  13. Martyn Houghton
    @Ehsan Thanks for the quick reply. When the setting is allowed does the generated request hold the email address in field we can gain access to from the BPM? My thinking here is that we still want to send an automated acknowledgement email, even if still need manual intervention from an analyst to create the contact, as the email/incident may be received out of hours. Are they any plans to automate the creation of contacts, possible via a BPM process, given that this setting will allow the incident to be logged? Cheers Martyn
  14. Martyn Houghton
    @Alex8000 I can confirm we are seeing the same. We too have a customised logo which is not being shown on the customer portal logo on screen. Cheers Martyn
  15. Martyn Houghton
    We are looking at implementing Routing Rules for a shared mailbox where we will receive email incidents from members of the public. Most of these emails will come from members of the public who will not already be a contact within our system and therefore we are looking for away we can automatically create a new contact under our 'public users' organisation record in order to log the incident and have the email address as the contact on the incident. I am presuming I have to create a contact in order to link it to the incident and send emails to them from both the incidents itself and the its associated BPM? Is there another way to achieve this, without creating a contact? Cheers Martyn
  16. Martyn Houghton
    @SJEaton In our setup we created a separate mailbox role for each shared mailbox and then allocated membership of these to the individuals, with the rights below. Also we when you get access sorted you need to be careful about which mailbox is used when sending emails from requests in the live user app as there is no current default settings and choose the first one alphabetical in the list. Which is why we have raised the issue below about having a default per service. Cheers Martyn
  17. Martyn Houghton
    @SJEaton When you are in the mailbox view they should be listed at the top left hand corner. When you are in Service Manager and using the Email option you will get a From option if you have access to multiple shared mailboxes. Cheers Martyn
  18. Martyn Houghton
    @Alex8000 We too have not been able to workout how to remove the instance name from the customer presented URL. I suspect to do so would require some changes on the Hornbill end. Cheers Martyn
  19. Martyn Houghton
    @Victor What I was meaning by "Is there any plans to allow the ability of requests to be reopened at the service level" was "Is there any plans to allow the ability to restrict tha ability of requests to be reopened at the service level, i.e. in terms of toggle setting to say that option to re-open is not displayed to the customer at all." Cheers Martyn
  20. Martyn Houghton
    At the moment you can specify multiple email address within a shared mailbox with one of them being the default. It would be really useful to be able to specify what email address to be used when sending an email from with the BPM, in addition to specifying the mailbox to be used. The reason for asking was that we have a number of services we are implementing as a portal only service, so do not want to deal with emails relating to the these services but do want to send an initial confirmation and final resolution email. Therefore I would like to be able to send the email from a noreply@.... address within our domain, without having to purchase another shared mailbox license to do it, given that the whole point is not to have a mailbox interaction with these services. Cheers Martyn
  21. Martyn Houghton
    @James Ainsworth That will help a lot. Look forward build 946 being released. Cheers Martyn
  22. Martyn Houghton
    @Steven Boardman Thanks, that will be really useful. Cheers Martyn
  23. Martyn Houghton
    @Victor Sound good and positive approach to focus on distilling the requirements. Can you clarify the references to 'delete timers'? Will the resolution timer be restarted taking into account actions and previously on hold time etc , akin to the request being on hold in essence since the request was set a resolved/closed? Also as we have a number of stages in our BPM, will it be possible to link back to an earlier stage in the BPM when a request is reopened, else we would have to put the whole process in a single stage to cope with potential re-opening of the request? Is there any plans to allow the ability of requests to be reopened at the service level, which has been raised as well? Cheers Martyn
  24. Martyn Houghton
    @DougA At the moment without Hornbill exposing the source type value in the progressive capture flow so that you can branch based on its value, the only way will be to duplicate you catalog items, one for ServiceDesk one for Portals. The only other workaround I can see is that you have a single PC with the Impact/Urgency custom form, but set the BPM to assign the incident immediately to analyst who logged it if the source is via the service desk along with a human task to actually set the priority. @James Ainsworth can a change request be raised to provide the source type value in the progressive captuer flow when run via live user app and the portals? Cheers Martyn
  25. Martyn Houghton
    @DougA The source is not present in the variables in the Progressive Capture, so at the moment is not possible to branch on it. We approached this in a slightly different way using a custom form asking them for their 'Requested Priority' which is used by the Service Desk and on our portals. Then in our BPM we actually set the priority manually as part of validating the request. Cheers Martyn
×
×
  • Create New...