Jump to content

Martyn Houghton

Hornbill Users
  • Posts

    3,995
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    86

Everything posted by Martyn Houghton

  1. @AlexTumber Any update on this, as supplier interactions are hardly ever (well for us) single binary event timelines in terms of response? There always will be a bit a back and forth when the supplier timer event timer will need to be paused but still active. Cheers Martyn
  2. @SamS @Harry Hornbill Is there any update on this? Not being able to import on-premise customer assets and link them to the Organisations so we can see them when logging requests against contact at the said organisation is quite frustrating. Cheers Martyn
  3. @Victor Looks like it did not make it into the latest Service Manager Build 2952, so would be good to have it documented in the roadmap. Cheers Martyn
  4. @TrevorKillick Thanks for the quick response. I will keep an eye out for the invite. Cheers Martyn
  5. @TrevorKillick @Gerry Are the details now confirmed for the Hornbill User Group (HUG) session in November? Did not want to start booking travel etc until they were. Cheers Martyn
  6. @Nanette Can this be put back into the Roadmap given it was incorrectly removed as being completed development? Cheers Martyn
  7. Can we request an integration enhancement to add support for Aha! Roadmap Software, in particular, the following methods for the administration of 'Portal User'. We use Aha! for interaction with our large user base to publish product roadmaps and collaborate with customers on new functionality/RFC's. We want to automate the creation, updating and removal of Aha! Portal users from requests logged via Service Manager Portals. Create a portal user Create a portal user with Delete a portal user Update a portal user Cheers Martyn References https://www.aha.io/api https://www.aha.io/api/resources/ideas_portal_users/create_a_portal_user
  8. @Nanette Thanks for the update. Whilst we await a new timescale, is there any information on the intended functionality change so we can prepare for this or even contribute to making the change more usable? Cheers Martyn
  9. @Gerry Yes thats the idea, 'Goto Via' rather than 'Goto Next Stage'. Having the ability easier read and follow the workflow without a spaghetti of crossing links make the workflow easier to maintain in my opinion. We are not going to get away from complex workflows hence the idea of making them easier to visualise. Cheers Martyn
  10. @Gerry I trying to make the workflow easier to read/follow where you have crossing connections, especially so when to are looping back to earlier in the workflow. Think of it like a multilayer PCB you have where you need to link back to somewhere else on the circuit board but not cross/short the connections. Cheers Martyn
  11. With the ever-growing complexity of our BPMs we very often have a large number of crossing node connections, even using Via nodes to try to space these out, can make the workflow still very hard to follow. Can we raise an enhancement request to have a 'Goto Via' set of nodes similar to the 'Nest Stage' node, which essentially goes to a 'Via' node or similar within the same stage. Then there could be a setting in the editor to either display the links from the new node (perhaps as a dotted line) or hide them? Cheers Martyn
  12. @Harry Hornbill Are there any plans to enhance the Known Errors request type BPM support, as not being able to publish or check the status of a Known Error from within the workflow is quite a big road block to automating them? Cheers Martyn
  13. @R Hicks As per @Conor advises we have this working in the description field as well. The only observation I would add would be to use the Hornbill Image Library function so you are not reliant on external image URL's. Cheers Martyn
  14. @Gerry Following on from yesterday's Insights session and the focus on automation, having the ability to override the visibility of auto-routing/responder rules updates to requests is quite critical for implementing Enterprise Service Management processes when integrating with external systems. For obvious reasons, internal emails and third-party updates should not be visible to the end-user customer. With the ability to override the visibility we can set up specific rules using the existing functionality to log and update requests automatically, whilst retaining the updating of the requests automatically with the customer updates visible on the timeline 24/7. Would you be able to raise this with the product team? Cheers Martyn
  15. @Steve Giller @Nanette Are you able to assist in clarifying the information for CH00157807 or one it be best to log a support request? Cheers Martyn
  16. @robertmichell You need to use a combination of two nodes. One to put the Request on Hold which is where you set the expiry period and then a Suspect Node to Wait for Request Off Hold. Just ensure on the Services page that you set the sub-statuses to be set when the request is updated or comes off hold. Cheers Martyn
  17. +1 for us, as would allow greater more granular interaction between different requests and workflows.
  18. @James Ainsworth Service Manager build 2853 included a change for the 'Wait for Substatus Change' suspend node to consider sub-status, but the parameters and help on the node do not appear to have been updated and on testing this without setting any parameters the suspend node does not pick up the change of the sub-status. Can you please advise on the specific changes made by CH00157807 and how we configure the node to proceed with the workflow when the sub-status changes within the same parent status? Cheers Martyn
  19. +1 We want to use Change Request element of Service Manager to manage changes to itself, thereby allowing us to audit and control access to specific elements at a more granular level.
×
×
  • Create New...