James Ainsworth

Hi @Dan Munns This might be worth while starting as a new post so that it doesn't get lost in this thread and so we can track it as its own requirement. Third Party Services is something discussed before and having a simple link may be a nice solution to get this started. James

Hi @Keith The ordering of Service is being managed in a different change. Updates of the progress for this feature will be posted here...

Hi @Lyonel I also wanted to let you know that we have finished some development work to allow the Routing Rules to add a post to a workspace. This will be provided in an upcoming Platform update. Keep an eye on the release notes. Regards, James

Hi Martyn, Do you mind if I ask how you are using the ordering of your SLAs or the reason behind having it in a particular order? Regards, James

Hi Sam, I'm going to assume that this is still the case for you. Discussing with Developers and as mentioned before, 0 is not used in our code so we are not aware at this point how these fields would have been populated with this value. I was wondering if you have experienced any new requests that mark feedback as being zero (0)? Regards, James

For now, something that might help is the Group Box. On a stage you can put your entire flow into a Group Box and then when the Group Box is selected and you use the ''Copy Selected Nodes'' option it will copy everything in the Group box. You can even have your workflows divided up into small groups to simplify your workflow if it is getting too busy... and then copy the Group Box to other Stages if you want to re-use the same nodes. Regards, James

Hi @Claire Holtham Many thanks for your patients. I know that this has been a long time coming. I do want to let you know that we have completed some development work in this area which is currently going through testing, with the possibility of being available over the next couple of weeks, provided that there are no issues. The options that will be included are: Select the size of the Service Icons. The available sizes will be listed as Large, Medium, or Small in the Service Manager Settings. The default will be Large which is a similar size to what is currently available. Select the number of Services per page. The default will be 6 service as it currently is. This can be changed to any number. Zero (0) will remove the Show More option and just display all services. If it is likely that customers will have a large number of services, this setting of 0 would not be recommended. Adaptive Layout of Services. With the default 6 services per page, the layout will adapt to the size of the screen. If there is room for all 6 services to fit on a single row, this will be the case. On a smaller screen, these will adapt to multiple rows. Hide the Service's More Option. A setting will be available that will hide the ''More'' option displayed under each Service, allowing for more room and a cleaner look. Hide the Service's Description. A setting will be available that will hide the Description for all the Services, allowing for more room and a cleaner look. Hide the Request Counter and Impact. A setting will be available that will hide to two information icons that show the request count and the current Service status. If these are not required for your customers, this may allow for a cleaner look and feel. The result being that it can look like this with medium icons and no extra information, just the Service Name... and no 'More Services' button. While there is still plenty more that we can do to add to the Portals, I hope that this will be a step in the right direction and that you will find these additions useful. Regards, James

Hi Martyn, We are looking to add to the filter options for the list of Services which will include items such as providing a filter by Service Category and eventually a Home View similar to the Request List. I'll look into the requirements for providing persisting filters for the Services List during your session and see how we can best deliver this. Regards, James

Hi Martyn, There is an existing discussion on this topic. That post will be linked to our existing change in our backlog. It might be worth continuing the conversation under this same post. This is not currently scheduled for development. Regards, James

Hi Mark, I can be worth having a look through the logic in the Routing Rules and compare with the contents of an email that wasn't raised automatically. If no rules are met, then the email will end up in the inbox. If the odd few are coming through this way then there might be something that needs to be tweaked. I recently had an example of this where I was testing for addressTo=''support@acme.com'' and once and a while the odd one didn't process as a request. I found that these emails had 2 recipients in the To field so my "=" was not picking them up as it didn't have an exact match. Instead I needed to have the rule addressTo like ''%support@acme.com%" . Regards, James

Thanks for your post @Lyonel. I will discuss with our developers to see what the possibility is of providing this. Regards, James

Hi Lyonel, There is a similar discussion here... Maybe worth continuing the conversation there to keep it all together. Regards, James

Hi Dan, Nothing at the moment. I'll chase up and see where we are. Regards, James

The challenge is between what information is captured in Progressive Capture compared to what default settings you have, followed by what actions occur automatically as part of a BPM. One scenario that I have personally come across is where a Progressive Capture did not include the assignment form, an application setting was assigning the request to a default team, but then the BPM did a reassignment to a different team. The confirmation box when I raised the request only showed the default team assignment from the setting, then looking at the request, it was sent off completely different. This takes away any value of having the confirmation box. As an unlimited number of things can be configured in the BPM and different progressive capture scripts can result in the same BPM being used I'm not sure if using variables would be the answer. There are just so many combinations. Variable themselves need to be populated and the timing of this may not provide the latest information on the request so there is still a risk of the confirmation box showing conflicting information which can lead to confusion. My suggestion is that at the end of the Progressive Capture you maintain the view of the information that you captured along with being presented the new Request ID. This way the request logger can see the information they added, without it being obscured by the confirmation box, there is no conflicting information presented to them to cause confusion, and there is still access to view the request to see the final result if they desire. Regards, James

There are two options for controlling visibility to user information. One of these is for each individual user to select which sections in their own profile are visible to other users. The second option is for an administrator. The About page on the profiles can be edited by an administrator. The top two sections - Basic Details and Job Details are sections that everyone can see. When in design mode an admin can move fields from the other sections into one of these two public sections, which will take affect for all users. I'm going to assume that the visibility of the information about a user on a request will be related to this. Once the Work Phone field is moved to the Job Details, it should become visible again. The change in behaviour is most likely the result of the profile rights being more adhered to and they are now working as they had originally intended. Regards, James

Hi @lokent We are currently discussing a feature request that would remove the pop-up. Once an approach has been agreed on we will get a change raised. I will then keep this post updated with the progress of the change to let you know when it will be available. If you don't hear anything do feel free to give us a nudge by posting back here. Regards, James

Hi @dwalby We are big users of Workspaces when it comes to enhancement requests. Posts on the Forums are added to a workspace where we can collaborate on the requirement up to a point where we have the information we need to raise a change. This initial visibility and discussion in the workspaces is an important part of our process. It allows others who may not normally participate in a formal change process add their ideas. Once we feel we are ready for a change, we use the action menu on the workspace post for raising changes. This keeps everything nicely linked up. The change will have the post as the source where all of the initial discussions can be reviewed and the post will have the change reference automatically added as a new comment. Our BPM is set up to automatically update the post as the change progresses so that everyone that participated in the workspace post is kept up to date. We have a CAB Board and a Development Scrum Board that helps us visualise the progress of the changes. This is mostly driven again by the BPM. The change type/size will influence the BPM workflow and how a change progresses. Where some are very minor and can go straight to the development team, other changes have to go through CAB and detailed planning. We then utilise the Release Records to bring together the changes and fixes that form an update. That is our process in a nutshell... There is some detail in the progressive capture, workflow, and the contents of the change where we work with mock-ups, requirements, documentation, etc but also we try not to over complicate the process as we do like to work in an agile way where we can. Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any questions about any particular part. Regards, James

Hi Andy, Thanks for your post. I will see if we can have the font colour changed on the grey (closed) changes so that there is more of a contrast between the background colour. Regards, James

Hi @lokent Thanks for your post. At the moment there is no setting for changing the content of this information box. We have been considering changing this confirmation box, or rather removing it. At the moment Team and Owner are hard set and this may not be the information that you are interested in. It is also possible that immediately after this has been raised that the BPM goes and re-assigns it again, if you have that set in your workflow. What I would like to propose is that after you select "Finish" on a Progressive Capture it simply displays the request ID (no pop-up) alongside the information that you have entered with the Progressive Capture. Everyone's Progressive Capture is going to be different and all the important information at this point is the information that you have collected so far. From here we would also have options to raise another request, view the request that you just raised, or return to your request list. Would this work for you both, lokent and @Dan Munns? Regards, James

Hi Martyn, As mentioned in my previous post, this was added as criteria to another planned change which at the moment is not yet scheduled. However, I'm also looking into this to see if this can be done in isolation as a smaller change which may allow us to progress it a little sooner. Regards, James

Hi Joyce, Thanks for your post. I wont have access to your system to see your process or the request that you mentioned. Is there a particular node where the BPM stops progressing? This along with a screen shot of the BPM workflow and the properties of that node might allow us to get some ideas until someone can look directly at your instance. Regards, James

Hi @lokent Thanks for your post. A the moment FAQs are only grouped by their service. The original concept behind the FAQs was to provide for each Service a way to define a list of top questions asked by customers with answers that can be provided by using text, images, or videos. For anything that requires more than a question/answer scenario, some customers use Document Manager. I would probably need to understand more about the content that you would like to present and how it is being used in order to help point you in the right direction. Bulletins are another method of presenting information. We don't currently have any plans for adding additional grouping of FAQs, but it is something we could look into in the future. Regards, James

Hi Hayley, Could you open up the CSV download in Notepad and let me know the format of the date and if the YYYY exists there too. Excel will do a date format conversion based on your regional settings on you computer. I'm not sure about the PDF. If the Data Preview shows the date in the correct format we need to determine at what point the format is changed. Regards, James

Hi @dconagh Thanks for your post. The Customer icon for this action will be grey in colour and the Change Customer button disabled until a customer has been selected using the Subscriber Search. As a request will already be associated to a Service, the subscriber search will only return customers that have access (subscribed) to the service that this request was raised against. Let us know if that helps, Regards, James

At the moment "Following" is an action that has to be done by the individual that wants to do the following. We have tried to follow on from how other tools use following. For example, in Twitter you can choose to follow someone, but another account nor Twitter themselves would be able to add users to your following list. Something that we are looking at is the ability to prompt someone to follow something. For example if you are added as a member of a request you could receive a prompt to say that you have been added as a member to request xxxxx, would you like to follow this request? Regards, James